Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Thoughts on MySQL and InnoDB

From: Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Thoughts on MySQL and InnoDB
Date: 2005-11-23 19:50:20
Message-ID: 4384C7FC.8080603@travelamericas.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Hi all;

I case people on this list have not seen the slashdot discussion 
(http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/23/0228258&tid=221&tid=218), 
it appears that MySQL has announced a commitment to provide a 
replacement to InnoDB to their customers.  I wanted to just fill in a 
few gaps that came up during my research.

First BDB is not a viable replacement for InnoDB for two reasons both of 
which stem from BDB architectural considerations (it simply wasn't 
designed to function well as a backend for a high concurrency RDBMS).    
Basically, while InnoDB uses MVCC, BDB uses page locks.  BDB therefore 
has locking issues because you don't have the snapshot capabilities that 
MVCC gets you with InnoDB, and it is unlikely that one will ever be able 
to provide multiple transaction levels with the BDB storage engine.

MaxDB/SAPDB might be a possibility but I don't know anything about how 
it handles things behind the scenes.  My uninformed guess is that it 
would be no better than BDB, possibly worse.

So my conclusion is that MySQL is biting off quite a bit with this 
commitment.  One really does not know how long it would take them to 
create such a table architecture froms scratch or indeed whether they 
are able to if they try. 

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Julian BlancDate: 2005-11-25 14:37:16
Subject: Re: An Elephant is Faithful 100%
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-11-22 20:08:02
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL, PostGIS and the African Elephant Database

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group