MyISAM versus InnoDB

Question

I m working on a projects which involves a lot of database writes  I d say  70  inserts and 30  reads    This ratio would also include updates which I consider to be one read and one write   The reads can be dirty  e g  I don t need 100  accurate information at the time of read   The task in question will be doing over 1 million database transactions an hour     I ve read a bunch of stuff on the web about the differences between MyISAM and InnoDB  and MyISAM seems like the obvious choice to me for the particular database tables that I ll be using for this task   From what I seem to be reading  InnoDB is good if transactions are needed since row level locking is supported   Does anybody have any experience with this type of load  or higher    Is MyISAM the way to go

User · Answer

In short  InnoDB is good if you are working on something that needs a reliable database that can handles a lot of INSERT and UPDATE instructions   and  MyISAM is good if you needs a database that will mostly be taking a lot of  read  SELECT  instructions rather than write  INSERT and UPDATES   considering its drawback on the table-lock thing   you may want to check out  Pros and Cons of InnoDB Pros and Cons of MyISAM

User · Answer

A bit late to the game   but here s a quite comprehensive post I wrote a few months back  detailing the major differences between MYISAM and InnoDB  Grab a cuppa  and maybe a biscuit   and enjoy     The major difference between MyISAM and InnoDB is in referential integrity and transactions  There are also other difference such as locking  rollbacks  and full-text searches   Referential Integrity  Referential integrity ensures that relationships between tables remains consistent  More specifically  this means when a table  e g  Listings  has a foreign key  e g  Product ID  pointing to a different table  e g  Products   when updates or deletes occur to the pointed-to table  these changes are cascaded to the linking table  In our example  if a product is renamed  the linking table   s foreign keys will also update  if a product is deleted from the    Products    table  any listings which point to the deleted entry will also be deleted  Furthermore  any new listing must have that foreign key pointing to a valid  existing entry   InnoDB is a relational DBMS  RDBMS  and thus has referential integrity  while MyISAM does not   Transactions  amp  Atomicity  Data in a table is managed using Data Manipulation Language  DML  statements  such as SELECT  INSERT  UPDATE and DELETE  A transaction group two or more DML statements together into a single unit of work  so either the entire unit is applied  or none of it is   MyISAM do not support transactions whereas InnoDB does   If an operation is interrupted while using a MyISAM table  the operation is aborted immediately  and the rows  or even data within each row  that are affected remains affected  even if the operation did not go to completion   If an operation is interrupted while using an InnoDB table  because it using transactions  which has atomicity  any transaction which did not go to completion will not take effect  since no commit is made   Table-locking vs Row-locking  When a query runs against a MyISAM table  the entire table in which it is querying will be locked  This means subsequent queries will only be executed after the current one is finished  If you are reading a large table  and or there are frequent read and write operations  this can mean a huge backlog of queries   When a query runs against an InnoDB table  only the row s  which are involved are locked  the rest of the table remains available for CRUD operations  This means queries can run simultaneously on the same table  provided they do not use the same row   This feature in InnoDB is known as concurrency  As great as concurrency is  there is a major drawback that applies to a select range of tables  in that there is an overhead in switching between kernel threads  and you should set a limit on the kernel threads to prevent the server coming to a halt   Transactions  amp  Rollbacks  When you run an operation in MyISAM  the changes are set  in InnoDB  those changes can be rolled back  The most common commands used to control transactions are COMMIT  ROLLBACK and SAVEPOINT  1  COMMIT - you can write multiple DML operations  but the changes will only be saved when a COMMIT is made 2  ROLLBACK - you can discard any operations that have not yet been committed yet 3  SAVEPOINT - sets a point in the list of operations to which a ROLLBACK operation can rollback to  Reliability  MyISAM offers no data integrity - Hardware failures  unclean shutdowns and canceled operations can cause the data to become corrupt  This would require full repair or rebuilds of the indexes and tables   InnoDB  on the other hand  uses a transactional log  a double-write buffer and automatic checksumming and validation to prevent corruption  Before InnoDB makes any changes  it records the data before the transactions into a system tablespace file called ibdata1  If there is a crash  InnoDB would autorecover through the replay of those logs   FULLTEXT Indexing  InnoDB does not support FULLTEXT indexing until MySQL version 5 6 4  As of the writing of this post  many shared hosting providers    MySQL version is still below 5 6 4  which means FULLTEXT indexing is not supported for InnoDB tables   However  this is not a valid reason to use MyISAM  It   s best to change to a hosting provider that supports up-to-date versions of MySQL  Not that a MyISAM table that uses FULLTEXT indexing cannot be converted to an InnoDB table   Conclusion  In conclusion  InnoDB should be your default storage engine of choice  Choose MyISAM or other data types when they serve a specific need

User · Answer

Please note that my formal education and experience is with Oracle  while my work with MySQL has been entirely personal and on my own time  so if I say things that are true for Oracle but are not true for MySQL  I apologize   While the two systems share a lot  the relational theory algebra is the same  and relational databases are still relational databases  there are still plenty of differences    I particularly like  as well as row-level locking  that InnoDB is transaction-based  meaning that you may be updating inserting creating altering dropping etc several times for one  operation  of your web application   The problem that arises is that if only some of those changes operations end up being committed  but others do not  you will most times  depending on the specific design of the database  end up with a database with conflicting data structure     Note  With Oracle  create alter drop statements are called  DDL   Data Definition  statements  and implicitly trigger a commit   Insert update delete statements  called  DML   Data Manipulation   are not committed automatically  but only when a DDL  commit  or exit quit is performed  or if you set your session to  auto-commit   or if your client auto-commits   It s imperative to be aware of that when working with Oracle  but I am not sure how MySQL handles the two types of statements   Because of this  I want to make it clear that I m not sure of this when it comes to MySQL  only with Oracle     An example of when transaction-based engines excel   Let s say that I or you are on a web-page to sign up to attend a free event  and one of the main purposes of the system is to only allow up to 100 people to sign up  since that is the limit of the seating for the event   Once 100 sign-ups are reached  the system would disable further signups  at least until others cancel   In this case  there may be a table for guests  name  phone  email  etc    and a second table which tracks the number of guests that have signed up   We thus have two operations for one  transaction    Now suppose that after the guest info is added to the GUESTS table  there is a connection loss  or an error with the same impact   The GUESTS table was updated  inserted into   but the connection was lost before the  available seats  could be updated   Now we have a guest added to the guest table  but the number of available seats is now incorrect  for example  value is 85 when it s actually 84    Of course there are many ways to handle this  such as tracking available seats with  100 minus number of rows in guests table   or some code that checks that the info is consistent  etc     But with a transaction-based database engine such as InnoDB  either ALL of the operations are committed  or NONE of them are   This can be helpful in many cases  but like I said  it s not the ONLY way to be safe  no  a nice way  however  handled by the database  not the programmer script-writer      That s all  transaction-based  essentially means in this context  unless I m missing something -- that either the whole transaction succeeds as it should  or nothing is changed  since making only partial changes could make a minor to SEVERE mess of the database  perhaps even corrupting it     But I ll say it one more time  it s not the only way to avoid making a mess   But it is one of the methods that the engine itself handles  leaving you to code script with only needing to worry about  was the transaction successful or not  and what do I do if not  such as retry    instead of manually writing code to check it  manually  from outside of the database  and doing a lot more work for such events   Lastly  a note about table-locking vs row-locking   DISCLAIMER   I may be wrong in all that follows in regard to MySQL  and the hypothetical example situations are things to look into  but I may be wrong in what exactly is possible to cause corruption with MySQL   The examples are however very real in general programming  even if MySQL has more mechanisms to avoid such things     Anyway  I am fairly confident in agreeing with those who have argued that how many connections are allowed at a time does not work around a locked table   In fact  multiple connections are the entire point of locking a table    So that other processes users apps are not able to corrupt the database by making changes at the same time   How would two or more connections working on the same row make a REALLY BAD DAY for you   Suppose there are two processes both want need to update the same value in the same row  let s say because the row is a record of a bus tour  and each of the two processes simultaneously want to update the  riders  or  available seats  field as  the current value plus 1    Let s do this hypothetically  step by step    Process one reads the current value  let s say it s empty  thus  0  so far    Process two reads the current value as well  which is still 0  Process one writes  current   1  which is 1  Process two should be writing 2  but since it read the current value before process one write the new value  it too writes 1 to the table    I m not certain that two connections could intermingle like that  both reading before the first one writes     But if not  then I would still see a problem with    Process one reads the current value  which is 0  Process one writes  current   1   which is 1  Process two reads the current value now   But while process one DID write  update   it has not committed the data  thus only that same process can read the new value that it updated  while all others see the older value  until there is a commit    Also  at least with Oracle databases  there are isolation levels  which I will not waste our time trying to paraphrase   Here is a good article on that subject  and each isolation level having it s pros and cons  which would go along with how important transaction-based engines may be in a database     Lastly  there may likely be different safeguards in place within MyISAM  instead of foreign-keys and transaction-based interaction   Well  for one  there is the fact that an entire table is locked  which makes it less likely that transactions FKs are needed     And alas  if you are aware of these concurrency issues  yes you can play it less safe and just write your applications  set up your systems so that such errors are not possible  your code is then responsible  rather than the database itself    However  in my opinion  I would say that it is always best to use as many safeguards as possible  programming defensively  and always being aware that human error is impossible to completely avoid   It happens to everyone  and anyone who says they are immune to it must be lying  or hasn t done more than write a  Hello World  application script    -   I hope that SOME of that is helpful to some one  and even more-so  I hope that I have not just now been a culprit of assumptions and being a human in error    My apologies if so  but the examples are good to think about  research the risk of  and so on  even if they are not potential in this specific context   Feel free to correct me  edit this  answer   even vote it down   Just please try to improve  rather than correcting a bad assumption of mine with another    -   This is my first response  so please forgive the length due to all the disclaimers  etc     I just don t want to sound arrogant when I am not absolutely certain

User · Answer

To add to the wide selection of responses here covering the mechanical differences between the two engines  I present an empirical speed comparison study  In terms of pure speed  it is not always the case that MyISAM is faster than InnoDB but in my experience it tends to be faster for PURE READ working environments by a factor of about 2 0-2 5 times  Clearly this isn t appropriate for all environments - as others have written  MyISAM lacks such things as transactions and foreign keys  I ve done a bit of benchmarking below - I ve used python for looping and the timeit library for timing comparisons  For interest I ve also included the memory engine  this gives the best performance across the board although it is only suitable for smaller tables  you continually encounter The table  tbl  is full when you exceed the MySQL memory limit   The four types of select I look at are   vanilla SELECTs counts conditional SELECTs indexed and non-indexed sub-selects  Firstly  I created three tables using the following SQL CREATE TABLE     data interrogation test table myisam               index col BIGINT NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT          value1 DOUBLE          value2 DOUBLE          value3 DOUBLE          value4 DOUBLE          PRIMARY KEY  index col            ENGINE MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET utf8  with  MyISAM  substituted for  InnoDB  and  memory  in the second and third tables     1  Vanilla selects Query  SELECT   FROM tbl WHERE index col   xx Result  draw  The speed of these is all broadly the same  and as expected is linear in the number of columns to be selected  InnoDB seems slightly faster than MyISAM but this is really marginal  Code  import timeit import MySQLdb import MySQLdb cursors import random from random import randint  db   MySQLdb connect host  quot     quot   user  quot     quot   passwd  quot     quot   db  quot     quot   cursorclass MySQLdb cursors DictCursor  cur   db cursor    lengthOfTable   100000    Fill up the tables with random data for x in xrange lengthOfTable       rand1   random random       rand2   random random       rand3   random random       rand4   random random        insertString    quot INSERT INTO test table innodb  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot      insertString2    quot INSERT INTO test table myisam  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot      insertString3    quot INSERT INTO test table memory  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot       cur execute insertString      cur execute insertString2      cur execute insertString3   db commit      Define a function to pull a certain number of records from these tables def selectRandomRecords testTable numberOfRecords        for x in xrange numberOfRecords           rand1   randint 0 lengthOfTable           selectString    quot SELECT   FROM  quot    testTable    quot  WHERE index col    quot    str rand1          cur execute selectString   setupString    quot from   main   import selectRandomRecords quot     Test time taken using timeit myisam times      innodb times      memory times       for theLength in  3 10 30 100 300 1000 3000 10000        innodb times append  timeit timeit  selectRandomRecords  quot test table innodb quot      str theLength         number 100  setup setupString        myisam times append  timeit timeit  selectRandomRecords  quot test table myisam quot      str theLength         number 100  setup setupString        memory times append  timeit timeit  selectRandomRecords  quot test table memory quot      str theLength         number 100  setup setupString        2  Counts Query  SELECT count    FROM tbl Result  MyISAM wins  This one demonstrates a big difference between MyISAM and InnoDB - MyISAM  and memory  keeps track of the number of records in the table  so this transaction is fast and O 1   The amount of time required for InnoDB to count increases super-linearly with table size in the range I investigated  I suspect many of the speed-ups from MyISAM queries that are observed in practice are due to similar effects  Code  myisam times      innodb times      memory times         Define a function to count the records def countRecords testTable        selectString    quot SELECT count    FROM  quot    testTable     cur execute selectString   setupString    quot from   main   import countRecords quot     Truncate the tables and re-fill with a set amount of data for theLength in  3 10 30 100 300 1000 3000 10000 30000 100000        truncateString    quot TRUNCATE test table innodb quot      truncateString2    quot TRUNCATE test table myisam quot      truncateString3    quot TRUNCATE test table memory quot       cur execute truncateString      cur execute truncateString2      cur execute truncateString3       for x in xrange theLength           rand1   random random           rand2   random random           rand3   random random           rand4   random random            insertString    quot INSERT INTO test table innodb  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot          insertString2    quot INSERT INTO test table myisam  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot          insertString3    quot INSERT INTO test table memory  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot           cur execute insertString          cur execute insertString2          cur execute insertString3       db commit          Count and time the query     innodb times append  timeit timeit  countRecords  quot test table innodb quot     number 100  setup setupString        myisam times append  timeit timeit  countRecords  quot test table myisam quot     number 100  setup setupString        memory times append  timeit timeit  countRecords  quot test table memory quot     number 100  setup setupString        3  Conditional selects Query  SELECT   FROM tbl WHERE value1 lt 0 5 AND value2 lt 0 5 AND value3 lt 0 5 AND value4 lt 0 5 Result  MyISAM wins  Here  MyISAM and memory perform approximately the same  and beat InnoDB by about 50  for larger tables  This is the sort of query for which the benefits of MyISAM seem to be maximised  Code  myisam times      innodb times      memory times         Define a function to perform conditional selects def conditionalSelect testTable       selectString    quot SELECT   FROM  quot    testTable    quot  WHERE value1  lt  0 5 AND value2  lt  0 5 AND value3  lt  0 5 AND value4  lt  0 5 quot      cur execute selectString   setupString    quot from   main   import conditionalSelect quot     Truncate the tables and re-fill with a set amount of data for theLength in  3 10 30 100 300 1000 3000 10000 30000 100000        truncateString    quot TRUNCATE test table innodb quot      truncateString2    quot TRUNCATE test table myisam quot      truncateString3    quot TRUNCATE test table memory quot       cur execute truncateString      cur execute truncateString2      cur execute truncateString3       for x in xrange theLength           rand1   random random           rand2   random random           rand3   random random           rand4   random random            insertString    quot INSERT INTO test table innodb  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot          insertString2    quot INSERT INTO test table myisam  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot          insertString3    quot INSERT INTO test table memory  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot           cur execute insertString          cur execute insertString2          cur execute insertString3       db commit          Count and time the query     innodb times append  timeit timeit  conditionalSelect  quot test table innodb quot     number 100  setup setupString        myisam times append  timeit timeit  conditionalSelect  quot test table myisam quot     number 100  setup setupString        memory times append  timeit timeit  conditionalSelect  quot test table memory quot     number 100  setup setupString        4  Sub-selects Result  InnoDB wins For this query  I created an additional set of tables for the sub-select  Each is simply two columns of BIGINTs  one with a primary key index and one without any index  Due to the large table size  I didn t test the memory engine  The SQL table creation command was CREATE TABLE     subselect myisam               index col bigint NOT NULL          non index col bigint          PRIMARY KEY  index col            ENGINE MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET utf8   where once again   MyISAM  is substituted for  InnoDB  in the second table  In this query  I leave the size of the selection table at 1000000 and instead vary the size of the sub-selected columns   Here the InnoDB wins easily  After we get to a reasonable size table both engines scale linearly with the size of the sub-select  The index speeds up the MyISAM command but interestingly has little effect on the InnoDB speed  subSelect png Code  myisam times      innodb times      myisam times 2      innodb times 2       def subSelectRecordsIndexed testTable testSubSelect       selectString    quot SELECT   FROM  quot    testTable    quot  WHERE index col in   SELECT index col FROM  quot    testSubSelect    quot    quot      cur execute selectString   setupString    quot from   main   import subSelectRecordsIndexed quot   def subSelectRecordsNotIndexed testTable testSubSelect       selectString    quot SELECT   FROM  quot    testTable    quot  WHERE index col in   SELECT non index col FROM  quot    testSubSelect    quot    quot      cur execute selectString   setupString2    quot from   main   import subSelectRecordsNotIndexed quot     Truncate the old tables  and re-fill with 1000000 records truncateString    quot TRUNCATE test table innodb quot  truncateString2    quot TRUNCATE test table myisam quot   cur execute truncateString  cur execute truncateString2   lengthOfTable   1000000    Fill up the tables with random data for x in xrange lengthOfTable       rand1   random random       rand2   random random       rand3   random random       rand4   random random        insertString    quot INSERT INTO test table innodb  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot      insertString2    quot INSERT INTO test table myisam  value1 value2 value3 value4  VALUES   quot    str rand1     quot   quot    str rand2     quot   quot    str rand3     quot   quot    str rand4     quot   quot       cur execute insertString      cur execute insertString2   for theLength in  3 10 30 100 300 1000 3000 10000 30000 100000        truncateString    quot TRUNCATE subselect innodb quot      truncateString2    quot TRUNCATE subselect myisam quot       cur execute truncateString      cur execute truncateString2         For each length  empty the table and re-fill it with random data     rand sample   sorted random sample xrange lengthOfTable   theLength       rand sample 2   random sample xrange lengthOfTable   theLength       for  the value 1 the value 2  in zip rand sample rand sample 2           insertString    quot INSERT INTO subselect innodb  index col non index col  VALUES   quot    str the value 1     quot   quot    str the value 2     quot   quot          insertString2    quot INSERT INTO subselect myisam  index col non index col  VALUES   quot    str the value 1     quot   quot    str the value 2     quot   quot           cur execute insertString          cur execute insertString2       db commit          Finally  time the queries     innodb times append  timeit timeit  subSelectRecordsIndexed  quot test table innodb quot   quot subselect innodb quot     number 100  setup setupString        myisam times append  timeit timeit  subSelectRecordsIndexed  quot test table myisam quot   quot subselect myisam quot     number 100  setup setupString                 innodb times 2 append  timeit timeit  subSelectRecordsNotIndexed  quot test table innodb quot   quot subselect innodb quot     number 100  setup setupString2        myisam times 2 append  timeit timeit  subSelectRecordsNotIndexed  quot test table myisam quot   quot subselect myisam quot     number 100  setup setupString2     I think the take-home message of all of this is that if you are really concerned about speed  you need to benchmark the queries that you re doing rather than make any assumptions about which engine will be more suitable

User · Answer

If it is 70  inserts and 30  reads then it is more like on the InnoDB side

User · Answer

For a load with more writes and reads  you will benefit from InnoDB  Because InnoDB provides row-locking rather than table-locking  your SELECTs can be concurrent  not just with each other but also with many INSERTs  However  unless you are intending to use SQL transactions  set the InnoDB commit flush to 2  innodb flush log at trx commit   This gives you back a lot of raw performance that you would otherwise lose when moving tables from MyISAM to InnoDB   Also  consider adding replication  This gives you some read scaling and since you stated your reads don t have to be up-to-date  you can let the replication fall behind a little  Just be sure that it can catch up under anything but the heaviest traffic or it will always be behind and will never catch up  If you go this way  however  I strongly recommend you isolate reading from the slaves and replication lag management to your database handler  It is so much simpler if the application code does not know about this   Finally  be aware of different table loads  You will not have the same read write ratio on all tables  Some smaller tables with near 100  reads could afford to stay MyISAM  Likewise  if you have some tables that are near 100  write  you may benefit from INSERT DELAYED  but that is only supported in MyISAM  the DELAYED clause is ignored for an InnoDB table     But benchmark to be sure

User · Answer

I have briefly discussed this question in a table so you can conclude whether to go with InnoDB or MyISAM   Here is a small overview of which db storage engine you should use in which situation                                                     MyISAM   InnoDB ---------------------------------------------------------------- Required full-text search                        Yes      5 6 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Require transactions                                      Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frequent select queries                          Yes       ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frequent insert  update  delete                           Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Row locking  multi processing on single table             Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Relational base design                                    Yes   Summary   In almost all circumstances  InnoDB is the best way to go But  frequent reading  almost no writing  use MyISAM Full-text search in MySQL  lt   5 5  use MyISAM

User · Answer

I tried to run insertion of random data into MyISAM and InnoDB tables  The result was quite shocking  MyISAM needed a few seconds less for inserting 1 million rows than InnoDB for just 10 thousand

User · Answer

I know this won t be popular but here goes   myISAM lacks support for database essentials like transactions and referential integrity which often results in glitchy   buggy applications  You cannot not learn proper database design fundamentals if they are not even supported by your db engine    Not using referential integrity or transactions in the database world is like not using object oriented programming in the software world    InnoDB exists now  use that instead  Even MySQL developers have finally conceded to change this to the default engine in newer versions  despite myISAM being the original engine that was the default in all legacy systems    No it does not matter if you are reading or writing or what performance considerations you have  using myISAM can result in a variety of problems  such as this one I just ran into  I was performing a database sync and at the same time someone else accessed an application that accessed a table set to myISAM  Due to the lack of transaction support and the generally poor reliability of this engine  this crashed the entire database and I had to manually restart mysql   Over the past 15 years of development I have used many databases and engines   myISAM crashed on me about a dozen times during this period  other databases  only once  And that was a microsoft SQL database where some developer wrote faulty CLR code  common language runtime - basically C  code that executes inside the database  by the way  it was not the database engine s fault exactly   I agree with the other answers here that say that quality high-availability  high-performance applications should not use myISAM as it will not work  it is not robust or stable enough to result in a frustration-free experience  See Bill Karwin s answer for more details   P S  Gotta love it when myISAM fanboys downvote but can t tell you which part of this answer is incorrect

User · Answer

The Question and most of the Answers are out of date   Yes  it is an old wives  tale that MyISAM is faster than InnoDB   notice the Question s date   2008  it is now almost a decade later   InnoDB has made significant performance strides since then   The dramatic graph was for the one case where MyISAM wins  COUNT    without a WHERE clause   But is that really what you spend your time doing   If you run concurrency test  InnoDB is very likely to win  even against MEMORY   If you do any writes while benchmarking SELECTs  MyISAM and MEMORY are likely to lose because of table-level locking   In fact  Oracle is so sure that InnoDB is better that they have all but removed MyISAM from 8 0   The Question was written early in the days of 5 1   Since then  these major versions were marked  General Availability     2010  5 5   8 in Dec   2013  5 6   10 in Feb   2015  5 7   9 in Oct   2018  8 0   11 in Apr     Bottom line   Don t use MyISAM

User · Answer

I ve figure out that even though Myisam has locking contention  it s still faster than InnoDb in most scenarios because of the rapid lock acquisition scheme it uses  I ve tried several times Innodb and always fall back to MyIsam for one reason or the other  Also InnoDB can be very CPU intensive in huge write loads

User · Answer

Slightly off-topic  but for documentation purposes and completeness  I would like to add the following   In general using InnoDB will result in a much LESS complex application  probably also more bug-free  Because you can put all referential integrity  Foreign Key-constraints  into the datamodel  you don t need anywhere near as much application code as you will need with MyISAM   Every time you insert  delete or replace a record  you will HAVE to check and maintain the relationships  E g  if you delete a parent  all children should be deleted too  For instance  even in a simple blogging system  if you delete a blogposting record  you will have to delete the comment records  the likes  etc  In InnoDB this is done automatically by the database engine  if you specified the contraints in the model  and requires no application code  In MyISAM this will have to be coded into the application  which is very difficult in web-servers  Web-servers are by nature very concurrent   parallel and because these actions should be atomical and MyISAM supports no real transactions  using MyISAM for web-servers is risky   error-prone   Also in most general cases  InnoDB will perform much better  for a multiple of reasons  one them being able to use record level locking as opposed to table-level locking  Not only in a situation where writes are more frequent than reads  also in situations with complex joins on large datasets  We noticed a 3 fold performance increase just by using InnoDB tables over MyISAM tables for very large joins  taking several minutes    I would say that in general InnoDB  using a 3NF datamodel complete with referential integrity  should be the default choice when using MySQL  MyISAM should only be used in very specific cases  It will most likely perform less  result in a bigger and more buggy application   Having said this  Datamodelling is an art seldom found among webdesigners   -programmers  No offence  but it does explain MyISAM being used so much

User · Answer

For that ratio of read writes I would guess InnoDB will perform better   Since you are fine with dirty reads  you might  if you afford  replicate to a slave and let all your reads go to the slave  Also  consider inserting in bulk  rather than one record at a time

User · Answer

I ve worked on a high-volume system using MySQL and I ve tried both MyISAM and InnoDB   I found that the table-level locking in MyISAM caused serious performance problems for our workload which sounds similar to yours  Unfortunately I also found that performance under InnoDB was also worse than I d hoped   In the end I resolved the contention issue by fragmenting the data such that inserts went into a  hot  table and selects never queried the hot table   This also allowed deletes  the data was time-sensitive and we only retained X days worth  to occur on  stale  tables that again weren t touched by select queries  InnoDB seems to have poor performance on bulk deletes so if you re planning on purging data you might want to structure it in such a way that the old data is in a stale table which can simply be dropped instead of running deletes on it   Of course I have no idea what your application is but hopefully this gives you some insight into some of the issues with MyISAM and InnoDB

User · Answer

If you use MyISAM  you won t be doing any transactions per hour  unless you consider each DML statement to be a transaction  which in any case  won t be durable or atomic in the event of a crash    Therefore I think you have to use InnoDB   300 transactions per second sounds like quite a lot  If you absolutely need these transactions to be durable across power failure make sure your I O subsystem can handle this many writes per second easily  You will need at least a RAID controller with battery backed cache   If you can take a small durability hit  you could use InnoDB with innodb flush log at trx commit set to 0 or 2  see docs for details   you can improve performance   There are a number of patches which can increase concurrency from Google and others - these may be of interest if you still can t get enough performance without them

User · Answer

I m not a database expert  and I do not speak from experience  However   MyISAM tables use table-level locking  Based on your traffic estimates  you have close to 200 writes per second  With MyISAM  only one of these could be in progress at any time  You have to make sure that your hardware can keep up with these transaction to avoid being overrun  i e   a single query can take no more than 5ms   That suggests to me you would need a storage engine which supports row-level locking  i e   InnoDB   On the other hand  it should be fairly trivial to write a few simple scripts to simulate the load with each storage engine  then compare the results

User · Answer

Also check out some drop-in replacements for MySQL itself   MariaDB  http   mariadb org   MariaDB is a database server that offers drop-in replacement functionality for MySQL  MariaDB is built by some of the original authors of MySQL  with assistance from the broader community of Free and open source software developers  In addition to the core functionality of MySQL  MariaDB offers a rich set of feature enhancements including alternate storage engines  server optimizations  and patches   Percona Server  https   launchpad net percona-server  An enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL  with better performance  improved diagnostics  and added features

User · Answer

In my experience  MyISAM was a better choice as long as you don t do DELETEs  UPDATEs  a whole lot of single INSERT  transactions  and full-text indexing  BTW  CHECK TABLE is horrible  As the table gets older in terms of the number of rows  you don t know when it will end

User · Answer

Every application has it s own performance profile for using a database  and chances are it will change over time   The best thing you can do is to test your options  Switching between MyISAM and InnoDB is trivial  so load some test data and fire jmeter against your site and see what happens

User · Answer

myisam is a NOGO for that type of workload  high concurrency writes   i dont have that much experience with innodb  tested it 3 times and found in each case that the performance sucked  but it s been a while since the last test  if you re not forced to run mysql  consider giving postgres a try as it handles concurrent writes MUCH better

User · Answer

InnoDB offers   ACID transactions row-level locking foreign key constraints automatic crash recovery table compression  read write  spatial data types  no spatial indexes    In InnoDB all data in a row except for TEXT and BLOB can occupy 8 000 bytes at most  No full text indexing is available for InnoDB  In InnoDB the COUNT   s  when WHERE  GROUP BY  or JOIN is not used  execute slower than in MyISAM because the row count is not stored internally  InnoDB stores both data and indexes in one file  InnoDB uses a buffer pool to cache both data and indexes   MyISAM offers   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    MyISAM has table-level locking  but no row-level locking  No transactions  No automatic crash recovery  but it does offer repair table functionality  No foreign key constraints  MyISAM tables are generally more compact in size on disk when compared to InnoDB tables  MyISAM tables could be further highly reduced in size by compressing with myisampack if needed  but become read-only  MyISAM stores indexes in one file and data in another  MyISAM uses key buffers for caching indexes and leaves the data caching management to the operating system   Overall I would recommend InnoDB for most purposes and MyISAM for specialized uses only  InnoDB is now the default engine in new MySQL versions

User · Answer

I think this is an excellent article on explaining the differences and when you should use one over the other  http   tag1consulting com MySQL Engines MyISAM vs InnoDB

User · Answer

Almost every time I start a new project I Google this same question to see if I come up with any new answers   It eventually boils down to - I take the latest version of MySQL and run tests   I have tables where I want to do key value lookups    and that s all  I need to get the value  0-512 bytes  for a hash key  There is not a lot of transactions on this DB  The table gets updates occasionally  in it s entirety   but 0 transactions   So we re not talking about a complex system here  we are talking about a simple lookup    and how  other than making the table RAM resident  we can optimize performance   I also do tests on other databases  ie NoSQL  to see if there is anywhere I can get an advantage  The biggest advantage I have found is in key mapping but as far as the lookup goes  MyISAM is currently topping them all   Albeit  I wouldn t perform financial transactions with MyISAM tables but for simple lookups  you should test it out   typically 2x to 5x the queries sec   Test it  I welcome debate

User · Answer

bottomline  if you are working offline with selects on large chunks of data  MyISAM will probably give you better  much better  speeds   there are some situations when MyISAM is infinitely more efficient than InnoDB  when manipulating large data dumps offline  because of table lock      example  I was converting a csv file  15M records  from NOAA which uses VARCHAR fields as keys   InnoDB was taking forever  even with large chunks of memory available   this an example of the csv  first and third fields are keys    USC00178998 20130101 TMAX -22   7 0700 USC00178998 20130101 TMIN -117   7 0700 USC00178998 20130101 TOBS -28   7 0700 USC00178998 20130101 PRCP 0 T  7 0700 USC00178998 20130101 SNOW 0 T  7    since what i need to do is run a batch offline update of observed weather phenomena  i use  MyISAM table for receiving data and run JOINS on the keys so that i can clean the incoming file and replace VARCHAR fields with INT keys  which are related to external tables where the original VARCHAR values are stored

User · Answer

People often talk about performance  reads vs  writes  foreign keys  etc  but there s one other must-have feature for a storage engine in my opinion   atomic updates   Try this    Issue an UPDATE against your MyISAM table that takes 5 seconds  While the UPDATE is in progress  say 2 5 seconds in  hit Ctrl-C to interrupt it  Observe the effects on the table   How many rows were updated   How many were not updated   Is the table even readable  or was it corrupted when you hit Ctrl-C  Try the same experiment with UPDATE against an InnoDB table  interrupting the query in progress  Observe the InnoDB table   Zero rows were updated   InnoDB has assured you have atomic updates  and if the full update could not be committed  it rolls back the whole change   Also  the table is not corrupt   This works even if you use killall -9 mysqld to simulate a crash    Performance is desirable of course  but not losing data should trump that

[mysql] MyISAM versus InnoDB

Examples related to mysql

Examples related to database

Examples related to performance

Examples related to innodb

Examples related to myisam