On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:26, Philipp Taprogge wrote:
..
Kevin Burton wrote:
If cluster was solid and feature par with MyISAM there's nothing
preventing existing customers from upgrading.
Thoughts?
I have got one word for you: performance.
One of the strengths of MySQL is that pluggable storage engines allow
you to focus on your application's needs.
Why waste precious CPU cycles in cluster concurrency code when you
have
only one node?
A MyISAM table will IMO always give you faster SELECTs than a single
node cluster. That's simply because there's so much work to do to
make a
cluster reliable.
Besides: I don't see what one woulld gain by giving up the other
engines.
I'm happy somebody said it before I did :)
I would like to add: MySQL is about making a DBMS affordable for
everyone.
http://www.mysql.com/company/
MySQL Cluster would need far more investment in hardware. Add to that
rack-space, energy is not cheap.. Investing in a Master/Slave would
be a better solution for most people's budget (and also less complex).
Give people a choice is best there is. Got to love the CSV engine and
using tail -f on a table, no? :)
Best regards,
Geert
4 messages in com.mysql.lists.clusterRe: MySQL should focus 100% on NDB (f...