21 messages in com.mysql.lists.clusterRe: Disk-based storage...5.1?
FromSent OnAttachments
Jason Williams10 Nov 2005 13:49 
Adam Dixon10 Nov 2005 14:41 
Simon Garner10 Nov 2005 14:42 
Jason Williams10 Nov 2005 15:16 
pek...@mysql.com10 Nov 2005 15:45 
Fabricio Mota10 Nov 2005 16:12 
Stewart Smith10 Nov 2005 16:52 
Fabricio Mota10 Nov 2005 17:23 
Jason Williams10 Nov 2005 17:54 
Simon Garner10 Nov 2005 18:01 
pek...@mysql.com11 Nov 2005 01:05 
Kenji HIROHAMA11 Nov 2005 01:22 
Stewart Smith11 Nov 2005 19:46 
Mark Kirkwood13 Nov 2005 20:00 
pek...@mysql.com14 Nov 2005 01:06 
Mikael Ronström14 Nov 2005 15:02 
Jason Williams14 Nov 2005 17:55 
Stewart Smith14 Nov 2005 19:09 
Jason Williams14 Nov 2005 20:11 
Simon Garner14 Nov 2005 20:28 
Stewart Smith31 Jan 2006 19:16 
Subject:Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?
From:pek...@mysql.com (pek@mysql.com)
Date:11/10/2005 03:45:04 PM
List:com.mysql.lists.cluster

Which is totally unclear as to exactly how it will work. eg is it whole tables only on disk, partitions of tables etc.

Given _attributes_ on disk. No indexed attributes in 5.1. In particular PK must be in memory.

More importantly, will there be a significant performance penalty?

Disk pages are cached (like in any real rdbms). If cache hit ratio is good, performance should be close to memory data.

...Performance was a lot poorer than InnoDB at the time.

InnoDB is within same process (mysqld). NDB is networked.

-- Pekka Nousiainen, Software Engineer MySQL AB, www.mysql.com pek@mysql.X.com +46 (0) 73 068 4978