GET 24/7 LIVE HELP NOW

Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

innodb_file_per_table vs ibdata1 performance

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • innodb_file_per_table vs ibdata1 performance

    Good day to all.

    When i was choosing between file_per_table and "all in one" - ibdata some time ago, i googled this article - http://umangg.blogspot.ru/2010/02/in...epertable.html
    Yes, it's 2010 and it says, that ibdata architecture shows more perfomance, then file_per_table.

    Can anyone approve it?

  • #2
    Hi,

    I tought it's hard to say which way you get better performance. I think better is to choose either shared tablespace or separate tablespace as per your database configuration, work load etc to achieve better performance. For instance, innodb_file_per_table is good when you are often truncates tables to reclaim disk space, to compress data, backup/restore partially i.e. single table/database, storing tables on separate disks etc I believe innodb_file_per_table edge on ibdata1.

    Thanks,. .

    Comment

    Working...
    X