Re: [Postfixadmin-devel] database setup

[Farkas L. <lf...@bp...>]

David Goodwin wrote:
> Farkas Levente wrote :
>> hi,
>> i wouldn't like to go into the detailed discussion of database. just a
>> few of my thoughts:
>> - i would like to keep all of my database utf-8. otherwise always
>> happened something wrong.
>> - i don't like innodb since it creates a never ending growing files.
> 
> Can you provide more details on this - I've used innodb at work, and
> never had a problem with it - it certainly hasn't used up all available
> disk space!
> 
> Innodb is far better than MyISAM for a number of reasons - e.g.
> transactions, acid compliance, foreign key support etc.
> The _only_ reason you'd ever want to use MyISAM is for quick selects, or
> if you want full text indexing (afaik). We don't need either, so it's
> not a problem.
> 
> Innodb also doesn't do table level locking, which is probably a good
> thing as the vacation tables are the only ones which are likely to
> experience a lot of read/write traffic - all other tables are
> effectively 'read-only' for the vast majority of the time.
> 
> (I hope that makes sense... I'm just pointing out that I think innodb is
> a good choice for the vacation tables).

i know all the above except the file in /var/lib/mysql which holds the
database never get shorter. even if you delete all the tables. that's
way most people not like it. of course if the whole history (from the
creation and all changes) of the database is not too long than you not
recognize it.

>> - i like to use mysql.
>> probably the best choice would be falcon, but the it'll be released only
>> next year. so i don't know the solution but something better then the
>> current.
> 
> We wouldn't be able to support falcon for some time - as Christian says
> - partly because it'll take ~ 6 months for Linux distributions to catch
>   up and ship with it, and partly because there will be a number of
>   people not using the latest version of MySQL, who won't want to
>   upgrade.
> 
> I thought Falcon is mostly a replacement for Innodb, to remove any 
> dependence on Oracle - in our situation, would it bring any new
> functionality above innodb?

i hope it won't an all the time increasing file.

-- 
  Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"