ORMLite's MySQL driver defaults to using InnoDB tables. The documentation describes how to configure it to use other table types, but does not describe the consequences of doing so. Having had bad experiences with InnoDB recently I'd like to migrate to MyISAM, but just wanted to check all features of ORMLite will continue to work correctly if I do, as I know MyISAM lacks some features that are supported by InnoDB. Anyone have any experience of this? Any lurking problems?
(FWIW, I do know my application does not have any particular need of transactions, which is one obvious feature that would fail)
Sorry but I have no idea about the difference between InnoDB and MyISAM from the perspective of the ORM. I would hope that ORMLite is not in any way affected. That the type of table is an internal MySQL designation and may affect performance or query behavior.
Here's a good table of differences between the 2 types that I'll summarize here.
InnoDB is newer while MyISAM is older.
InnoDB is more complex while MyISAM is simpler.
InnoDB is more strict in data integrity while MyISAM is loose.
InnoDB implements row-level lock for inserting and updating while MyISAM implements table-level lock.
InnoDB has transactions while MyISAM does not.
InnoDB has foreign keys and relationship contraints while MyISAM does not.
InnoDB has better crash recovery while MyISAM is poor at recovering data integrity at system crashes.
MyISAM has full-text search index while InnoDB has not.
The only thing that I see on this list which impacts the query-level is that MyISAM does not support foreign-keys or constraints but ORMLite (as of 3/2013) does not support them either. MyISAM does not support transactions but you can make ORMLite calls without them.
Off the top of my head I see nothing on this list that would impact the ORM. That said testing would be a good idea. :-)
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What is InnoDB and MyISAM in MySQL?
in my project database some of table has engine type innoDB and some others Myisam.
why it was set like this ?
The 2 major types of table storage engines for MySQL databases are InnoDB and MyISAM. To summarize the differences of features and performance,
InnoDB is newer while MyISAM is older.
InnoDB is more complex while MyISAM is simpler.
InnoDB is more strict in data integrity while MyISAM is loose.
InnoDB implements row-level lock for inserting and updating while MyISAM implements table-level lock.
InnoDB has transactions while MyISAM does not.
InnoDB has foreign keys and relationship contraints while MyISAM does not.
InnoDB has better crash recovery while MyISAM is poor at recovering data integrity at system crashes.
MyISAM has full-text search index while InnoDB has not.
In light of these differences, InnoDB and MyISAM have their unique advantages and disadvantages against each other. They each are more suitable in some scenarios than the other.
Advantages of InnoDB
InnoDB should be used where data integrity comes a priority because it inherently takes care of them by the help of relationship constraints and transactions.
Faster in write-intensive (inserts, updates) tables because it utilizes row-level locking and only hold up changes to the same row that’s being inserted or updated.
Disadvantages of InnoDB
Because InnoDB has to take care of the different relationships between tables, database administrator and scheme creators have to take more time in designing the data models which are more complex than those of MyISAM.
Consumes more system resources such as RAM. As a matter of fact, it is recommended by many that InnoDB engine be turned off if there’s no substantial need for it after installation of MySQL.
No full-text indexing.
Advantages of MyISAM
Simpler to design and create, thus better for beginners. No worries about the foreign relationships between tables.
Faster than InnoDB on the whole as a result of the simpler structure thus much less costs of server resources.
Full-text indexing.
Especially good for read-intensive (select) tables.
Disadvantages of MyISAM
No data integrity (e.g. relationship constraints) check, which then comes a responsibility and overhead of the database administrators and application developers.
Doesn’t support transactions which is essential in critical data applications such as that of banking.
Slower than InnoDB for tables that are frequently being inserted to or updated, because the entire table is locked for any insert or update.
The comparison is pretty straightforward. InnoDB is more suitable for data critical situations that require frequent inserts and updates. MyISAM, on the other hand, performs better with applications that don’t quite depend on the data integrity and mostly just select and display the data.
Reference:
Comparison InnoDB and MyISAM
You can also check it out here for further details:
MyISAM Or InnoDB MySQL engine?
Hope this helps.
When you use a MySQL database you can select the storage engine that fits your needs. From what you have said it sounds like you have inherited this project, so the previous developer probably selected different engines when creating tables. They could have also used 3rd party tools and MySQL Workbench with different settings that caused the tables to be created with different storage engines.
Anyway, a quick Google search or a search on this site should give you information as to the differences between the two, as well as their advantages and disadvantages (essentially, table vs. row -level locking, relationship enforcement, transactions and rollback).
Moving forward you can set the default storage engine in your configuration file so that when you create new tables they will be of the same type.
InnoDB is the default engine for MySQL 5.5.
Here is a good conversation to get you started: MyISAM versus InnoDB
MyISAM
Default engine
No Transaction support
Good for Heavy data reading
Bad for write calls: table level locking
InnoDB
Transaction safe
Good for Heavy write calls: row level locking
Supports foreign keys referential integrity constraints
Is InnoDB bad for data reading??? What other storage engines should i be familar with?
No, InnoDB is not "bad" for data reading; in fact, I tend to use it as a default engine for all of my tables. Transactions and true relational features outweigh any minor read-performance benefit that you might get from MyISAM (in my opinion).
Edited to add: MyISAM is faster than InnoDB because it is simpler. But, unless you're doing some really high-volume stuff or are using an ancient machine as your database server, you're not likely to see a difference in daily operation.
Other storage engines to be familiar with are Memory for really fast, non-persistent data storage and CSV which I will use on occasion as part of data export processes.
This page has a comprehensive overview of MySQL Storage Engines.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the differences between MyISAM and Inno DB types in MySql?
The main difference is that InnoDB supports transactions while MyISAM does not.
There are numerous other differences, however the common one's i am aware of are:
MyISAM has typically been considered faster at searching, but recent InnoDB improvements are removing this difference and improving high concurrency workload performance
InnoDB support transactions whilst MyISAM does not
InnoDB supports referential integrity whilst MyISAM does not
InnoDB handles indexes a bit differently, storing the primary key as part of every index (making indexes take up more room on the disk, but also making a covering index more likely)
MyISAM does table level locking while InnoDB can do row level locking
Different memory/buffer/index settings are used in the MySQL configuration files
InnoDB is typically said to have better crash recovery
As mentioned in another answer, the data is store on disk differently. I believe InnoDB is configurable in this area and can have one file per table etc. if required
I'm sure a google search or the MySQL site will bring up numerous other differences in more detail.
InnoDB and MyISAM
Features and Performance comparison:
InnoDB is newer while MyISAM is older.
InnoDB is more complex while MyISAM is simpler.
InnoDB is more strict in data integrity while MyISAM is loose.
InnoDB implements row-level lock for inserting and updating while MyISAM implements table-level lock.
InnoDB has transactions while MyISAM does not.
InnoDB has foreign keys and relationship contraints while MyISAM does not.
InnoDB has better crash recovery while MyISAM is poor at recovering data integrity at system crashes.
MyISAM has full-text search index while InnoDB has not.
In light of these differences, InnoDB and MyISAM have their unique advantages and disadvantages against each other. They each are more suitable in some scenarios than the other.
Advantages of InnoDB
InnoDB should be used where data integrity comes a priority because it inherently takes care of them by the help of relationship constraints and transactions.
Faster in write-intensive (inserts, updates) tables because it utilizes row-level locking and only hold up changes to the same row that’s being inserted or updated.
Disadvantages of InnoDB
Because InnoDB has to take care of the different relationships between tables, database administrator and scheme creators have to take more time in designing the data models which are more complex than those of MyISAM.
Consumes more system resources such as RAM. As a matter of fact, it is recommended by many that InnoDB engine be turned off if there’s no substantial need for it after installation of MySQL.
No full-text indexing.
Advantages of MyISAM
Simpler to design and create, thus better for beginners. No worries about the foreign relationships between tables.
Faster than InnoDB on the whole as a result of the simpler structure thus much less costs of server resources.
Full-text indexing.
Especially good for read-intensive (select) tables.
Disadvantages of MyISAM
No data integrity (e.g. relationship constraints) check, which then comes a responsibility and overhead of the database administrators and application developers.
Doesn’t support transactions which is essential in critical data applications such as that of banking.
Slower than InnoDB for tables that are frequently being inserted to or updated, because the entire table is locked for any insert or update.
The comparison is pretty straightforward. InnoDB is more suitable for data critical situations that require frequent inserts and updates. MyISAM, on the other hand, performs better with applications that don’t quite depend on the data integrity and mostly just select and display the data.
Reference:
Comparison InnoDB and MyISAM
You can also check it out here for further details:
MyISAM Or InnoDB MySQL engine?
Hope this helps.
MyISAM supports (non-standard-SQL) fulltext indexing which InnoDB still does not. This is the only reason we ever use MyISAM today.
The most important difference between MyISAM and InnoDB is that InnoDB supports transactions and foreign keys. If you need foreign keys and related functionality (for example automatically cascading deletes), you will need to use InnoDB.
InnoDB is slower than MyISAM for most uses, but can perform faster in certain conditions due to a better locking mechanism; MyISAM locks the whole table for reading while inserts/updates are executing. InnoDB can do row-level locking, thus allowing multiple concurrent writes and read on the table.
You can have more information about MyISAM & InnoDB in MySQL Documentation:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/myisam-storage-engine.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-overview.html
The major difference is that InnoDB supports transactions, whereas MyISAM doesn't.
MyISAM and InnoDB also store their data on disk differently. MyISAM uses a data file and an index file for each table, stored in a directory named after the database. InnoDB seems to lump everything together in a file called ibdata1.
NFS support
Unlike MyISAM, InnoDB may have problems on NFS.
From Configuring InnoDB (MySQL version 5.5)
Caution
If reliability is a consideration for
your data, do not configure InnoDB to
use data files or log files on NFS
volumes. Potential problems vary
according to OS and version of NFS,
and include such issues as lack of
protection from conflicting writes,
and limitations on maximum file sizes.
InnoDB Features
1. Provides Full transaction capability with full ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability) compliance.
It has row level locking.By supporting row level locking, you can add data to an InnoDB table without the engine locking the table with each insert and this speeds up both the recovery and storage of information in the database.
The key to the InnoDB system is a database, caching and indexing structure where both indexes and data are cached in memory as well as being stored on disk This enables very fast recovery, and works even on very large data sets.
InnoDB supports foreign key constraints
InnoDB supports automatic crash recovery
InnoDB supports table compression (read/write)
InnoDB supports spatial data types (no spatial indexes)
Innodb support non-locking ANALYZE TABLE and is only required when the server has been running for a long time since it dives into the index statistics and gets the index information when the table opens.
Innodb does not have separate index files so they do not have to be opened.
Innodb builds its indexes one row at a time in primary key order (after an ALTER), which means index trees aren't built in optimal order and are fragmented.There is currently no way to defragment InnoDB indexes, as InnoDB can't build indexes by sorting in MySQL 5.0. Even dropping and recreating InnoDB indexes may result in fragmented indexes, depending on the data.
A table can contain a maximum of 1000 columns.
The InnoDB internal maximum key length is 3500 bytes, but MySQL itself restricts this to 3072 bytes. (1024 bytes for non-64-bit builds before MySQL 5.0.17, and for all builds before 5.0.15.)
The default database page size in InnoDB is 16KB. By recompiling the code, you can set it to values ranging from 8KB to 64KB. You must update the values of UNIV_PAGE_SIZE and UNIV_PAGE_SIZE_SHIFT in the univ.i source file.
InnoDB tables do not support FULLTEXT indexes.
MYISAM Features
No Transaction support
Table level locking
Provides Full Text search
No limit to data in table.
fast COUNT(*)s (when WHERE, GROUP BY, or JOIN is not used)
full text indexing
smaller disk footprint
very high table compression (read only)
spatial data types and indexes (R-tree)
By using DATA DIRECTORY='/path/to/data/directory' or INDEX DIRECTORY='/path/to/index/directory' you can specify where the MyISAM storage engine should
put a table's data file and index file. The directory must be the full path name to the directory, not a relative path.
you can find more detail at
http://faisalbhagat.blogspot.com/2014/09/innodb-vs-myisam.html
Here is a description of differences between InnoDB and MyIsam:
Differences between InnoDB and MyIsam
Few differences:
MYISAM doesnt support any database transactions,
INNODB will provide transactions
MYISAM provides a table level locking,
INNODB provides a row level locking
INNOBD supports foreign keys, MYISAM does not...
MyISAM is more convienient when it comes to backup, since it's rather simple to just lock all tables and copy the files directly in the filesystem. (mysqlhotcopy which is a perl-script is even part of mysql afaik)
InnoDB is a little more complex and just copying the files won't do since they cannot be restored on another machine out-of-the-box.
However, there are commercial software that offers InnoDB hotcopying.
While transaction support is the major difference, table-level locking can be an issue if you have long-running SELECT queries mixed with UPDATE statements.
I have a database with about 30 tables and 5 tables of them is write-intensive.
I'm considering
Convert 5 write-intensive tables to use InnoDB engine and keep the rest on MyISAM engine
Convert all tables to use InnoDB engine.
I wonder which approach is better?
To be more specific
The reason I want to keep some table on MyISAM engine is some of them has around 1,000,000 rows. I'm not sure how slower it will be for queries like "SELECT COUNT(*)" on these tables after converted to InnoDB.
I haven't done a test. I prefer getting some advices from any of you before start the switch.
These days, I always default to using InnoDB, especially on the write-intensive tables you mention where MyISAM suffers from full table locking. Here's a to-the-point comparison.
Reasons to use MyISAM:
Tables are really fast for select-heavy loads
Table level locks limit their scalability for write intensive multi-user environments.
Smallest disk space consumption
Fulltext index
Merged and compressed tables.
Reasons to use InnoDB:
ACID transactions
Row level locking
Consistent reads – allows you to reach excellent read write concurrency.
Primary key clustering – gives excellent performance in some cases.
Foreign key support.
Both index and data pages can be cached.
Automatic crash recovery – in case MySQL shutdown was unclean InnoDB tables will still - recover to the consistent state- No check / repair like MyISAM may require.
All updates have to pass through transactional engine in InnoDB, which often decreases - performance compared to non-transactional storage engines.
The above was taken from this site, which no longer seems to be working.
pros and cons for each.
for (1)
pros: less disk space usage, myisam much faster for read-heavy access patterns
cons: memory must be shared between the innodb buffers and myisam key buffers. innodb tables are about 4x bigger than their myisam counterparts. programmatic code must be adapted for deadlock handling.
just remember innodb will also lock if you're changing an indexed column or primary key.