MEMORY(HEAP) vs. InnoDB in a Read and Write Environment
Posted
by Johannes
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by Johannes
Published on 2010-05-04T16:53:36Z
Indexed on
2010/05/04
21:08 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 222
I want to program a real-time application using MySQL.
It needs a small table (less than 10000 rows) that will be under heavy read (scan) and write (update and some insert/delete) load. I am really speaking of 10000 updates or selects per second. These statements will be executed on only a few (less than 10) open mysql connections.
The table is small and does not contain any data that needs to be stored on disk. So I ask which is faster: InnoDB or MEMORY (HEAP)?
My thoughts are:
Both engines will probably serve SELECTs directly from memory, as even InnoDB will cache the whole table. What about the UPDATEs? (innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit?)
My main concern is the locking behavior: InnoDB row lock vs. MEMORY table lock. Will this present the bottleneck in the MEMORY implementation?
Thanks for your thoughts!
© Stack Overflow or respective owner
