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.
Related
I saw so many questions and answers on this topic MyISAM vs InnoDB on stackoverflow itself.
But, all of the questions and answers are too old and not related to the current stable version of MySQL 5.7.x
By the time so much development must have been done in both MyISAM and InnoDB.
So, I need those differences available presently with version 5.7.x
So, please don't mark my question duplicate and someone please explain the differences these storage engines have currently as well as the differences they have since past.
Also, please explain at what situation which storage engine should be chosen for a table.
Can different tables belonging to the same schema have different storage engines i.e. few tables will have InnoDB and few ones will have MyISAM.
If yes, then how the JOIN queries would get execute between tables with MyISAM and InnoDB?
Is it true that MySQL is going to remove MyISAM storage engine from the future version?
Your assumption that MyISAM has been receiving new development is not correct. MyISAM is not receiving any significant new development. MySQL is clearly moving in the direction of phasing out MyISAM, and using MyISAM is discouraged.
Oracle Corp. has not announced any specific date or version by which they will remove MyISAM. My guess is that MyISAM will never be fully removed, because there are too many sites that wouldn't be able to upgrade, without doing expensive testing to make sure their specific app won't experience any regression issues by converting to InnoDB.
But you might notice that in the MySQL 5.7 manual, the section on MyISAM has been demoted to Alternative Storage Engines, which should be a clue that it's receiving less priority.
In MySQL 5.7, MyISAM is still used for some of the system tables, like mysql.user, mysql.db, etc. But new system tables introduced in 5.6 and 5.7 are InnoDB. All system tables are InnoDB in MySQL 8.0.
MyISAM still does not support any of the properties of ACID. There are no transactions, no consistency features, and no durable writes. See my answer to MyISAM versus InnoDB.
MyISAM still does not support foreign keys, for what it's worth. But I seldom see real production sites using foreign keys even with InnoDB.
MyISAM supports only table-level locking (except for some INSERT appending to the end of a table, as noted in the manual).
MySQL 5.7 supports both fulltext indexes and spatial indexes in both MyISAM and InnoDB. These features are not reasons to continue using MyISAM as they once were.
Both logical backup tools like mysqldump and physical backup tools like Percona XtraBackup can't back up MyISAM tables without acquiring a global lock.
You asked if you could create a variety of tables with different storage engines in the same schema. Yes, you can, and this is the same as it has been for many versions of MySQL.
You asked if you can join tables of different storage engines (by the way, tables don't need to be in the same schema to be joined). Yes, you can join such tables, MySQL takes care of all the details. This is the same as it has been for many versions of MySQL.
But some weird cases can come up when you do this, like what if you update a MyISAM table and an InnoDB table in a transaction, and then roll back? The changes in the InnoDB table are rolled back, but the changes in the MyISAM table are not rolled back, so your data integrity can be broken if you aren't careful. This is also the same as it has been for many versions of MySQL.
Cases where MyISAM has an advantage over InnoDB is a short list, and it's getting shorter.
Some table-scan queries and bulk inserts are faster in MyISAM. InnoDB is better at indexed searches.
MyISAM may use less storage space than the equivalent data stored in an uncompressed InnoDB table. You can further compact MyISAM tables with myisampack, but this makes the MyISAM table read-only.
There are other options these days for compact storage of data in transactional storage engines, for example InnoDB table compression, or MyRocks.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM MyTable queries (with no WHERE clause) are very fast in MyISAM, because the accurate count of rows is persisted in the MyISAM metadata. InnoDB (or other MVCC implementations) doesn't keep this count persisted, because every transaction viewing the table might "see" a different row count. Only a storage engine that has table-level locking and no transaction isolation like MyISAM, can optimize this case.
Auto-increment that numbers independently for each distinct value in another key column. Again, this requires table-level locking, so it's not supported in InnoDB.
CREATE TABLE MyTable (
group_id INT NOT NULL,
seq_id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
PRIMARY KEY (group_id, seq_id)
) ENGINE=MyISAM;
It's still easy to move a MyISAM table from server to server, because the .MYD and .MYI files are self-contained. You can kind of do something similar with InnoDB tables, but you have to use the intricate feature of transportable tablespaces. But this easy-to-move-tables quality of MyISAM no longer works in MySQL 8.0, because of their new data dictionary feature.
Under certain load, MyISAM might be a better choice for internal_tmp_disk_storage_engine, which defaults to InnoDB in MySQL 5.7. If you run lots of queries that create temp tables on disk (in-memory temp tables won't benefit), it can put a strain on the InnoDB engine. But you'd have to have a high query rate for this to matter, and if your queries create so many temp tables on disk, you should try to optimize the queries differently.
MyISAM allows you to set multiple key caches, and define caches for specific tables. But the MyISAM key caches are only for index structures, not for data.
References:
https://www.percona.com/blog/2016/10/11/mysql-8-0-end-myisam/
https://www.percona.com/blog/2017/12/04/internal-temporary-tables-mysql-5-7/
http://jfg-mysql.blogspot.com/2017/08/why-we-still-need-myisam.html
I had this question for a job quiz and got it right: (referring the new version):
MyISAM and InnoDB are two different storage engins that handle CRUD operations differently.
Locking: When approching a row inside a MyISAM storage engin, all the table will be locked by other sessions until the change is commited, unlike InnoDB, which locks only the specific selected row(/s). The lock is released until the session is commited. Locking a table or a row causes suspention by other sessions that try to interact with the same table or row to prevent wrong data manipulations in the table for example.
Transactions: InnoDB supports transactions, unlike MyISAM. Transactions are a colection of 2 or more commands like SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE, to a single operation until complishion.
Atomic Operations: When setting a transaction in an InnoDB and
the operation is incompleted - it terminates all the changes and
restore the DB as it was (all or nothin'), so for example, if in the
middle of a transaction there is a syntax error in the code /
datatype mismatch or anything that might interupt the bundle of
commands to finish its operation - all the changes wont be applied,
thanks transactions atomicy. On the other hand, when using an
MyISAM storage engin, if a bundle of commands "breaks" (for any
reason), the operation stops immediately and all the
tables/rows/data that were affected will remain affected, which
might cause a corrupt data in the database (...and a headache).
B. Running an operation on MyISAM are set on the spot,
whereas InnoDB allows you to use the "ROLLBACK"s to discard any
change, which comes best in handy when running transactions.
Transaction Logs: When creating a transaction without a
transaction log in between, you can apply any changes on the table/s
in the DB, and if the table have a clustered index (for example),
the data will have to search where exactly it has to be inserted and
only then apply the change. In a case where there is a transaction
log in between the DB and the transaction, the changes will be sent
to the transaction log first and will set its order in the table
before sending the change to the DB - which will be less time
consuming. The DB saves logs from all the transactions that were
made, which can help to choose to restore any transaction previously
made, and recover all changes. When set to a "simple" recovery model- transactions are deleted from the transactions log and wont be able to recover data (used usually on DEV environments). When set to
"full" recovery model, all transactions are saved and listed, ready
to be restored - this is used usually on production environments
which might cause problems like preformance issues - so backing them
up and deleting from the server could be a solution. When set to a
"bulk-logged" recovery model saved transaction logs only for
specific "important" changes and commands (import,export,
insert-select, select-into, reorganaizing/rebuilding indexes), and
might prevent preformance issues.
Foreign keys: MyISAM dosn't use foreign keys, unlike InnoDB. When a table column has a foregin key set to point on an other table column, when any update/delete occures on the pointed table, it will know that the changes have to be applied on the other table pointing at it. This create a some kind of a link between the two table and keep data in sync. Setting tables with FKs might require more effort which might be considered as a disadvantage (?).
FULLTEXT indexing: InnoDB doesn't support FULLTEXT indexing in its previous versions - MyISAM does support it. Switching to MyISAM wont be the best solution so just update MySQL to a verion which does support FULLTEXT indexing.
FULLTEXT indexing can take texts like titles, comments, ect' - and search it (this should be a better option than the "LIKE" command in this case).
Spatial data types: Supported only on InnoDB.
To sum all up, InnoDB will be usually more reliable in terms of data handling, validity & recovery. For newer versions InnoDB will support FULLTEXT indexing for mainly searches - when using older versions with no option to update MySQL, using MyISAM will be great.
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
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.
I heard this today during interview for java developer. I had to list some advantages of MyISAM over InnoDB and why it's still being widely used. And they were waiting to hear from me the answer as the title of this question.
As I understand from their own answer: MyISAM doesn't have foreign keys and DB can be easily clustered (one table per server for example). But why can't we simply create InnoDB tables without foreign keys? This explaination sounds strange to me..
There is no silver bullet answer here. You need to know the pros and cons of each before you make a decision on which one you use for any particular application.
InnoDB:
supports FK's
supports transactions
uses a large memory buffer for operation
supports row level locking
But has a much higher maintenance cost -- you really need to tune your memory usage, configure your table files, etc.
MyISAM:
has a bunch of special column features that InnoDB doesn't, like:
full text indexes
spatial columns (I'm pretty sure this doesn't work with InnoDB)
Very fast for primary read/append use cases (table locks for updates, deletes, but not for inserts)
Also typically has faster inserts
caches indexes in memory (key buffer), but relies on the OS to buffer the actual data pages
For example, I'd use InnoDB for things like ecommerce, user databases or anything that I want to use transactions in.
For data warehouses, logging, reporting, etc I'd probably use MyISAM.
I had to list some advantages of MyISAM over InnoDB
FULLTEXT search
...
no, that's it.
(OK, there are some cases where MyISAM is faster than InnoDB, but rarely enough that it's worth putting up with the lack of ACID-compliance. Today the main reason for doing anything with MyISAM is to get fulltext search which is sadly not supported in InnoDB.)
I am not sure if this is no longer true MyISAM is faster than InnoDB for reads.
Also, MyISAM tables are stored in separate files and (from what I can remember) you can actually transport those files to another MySQL database and is easier to backup.
By default InnoDB databases are stored in one huge glob on the file system.
As for why it is still being widely used, I always figured it was because it is the default option. Personally, I still believe that the advantages of InnoDB triumphs MyISAM and MyISAM also has problems with data integrity from my experience.
You certainly could create InnoDB tables without foreign keys, but that is cutting out one of the main advantages of it: referential integrity.
However, since MyISAM isn't built with the intent of referential integrity table keys can be stored differently, and perhaps more efficiently.
There are also some differences in locking and access. InnoDB supports row level locking, whereas MyISAM only supports table-level locking. Depending on the queries you're performing (SELECTS versus INSERTS/UPDATES) this can have a noticeable effect on performance.
You prolly need to read up on the Mysql Peformance blog.