Should I use InnoDB or MyISAM for a write-only table?

I have a table where I just write.

Think of it as a "transactional" list, where I save all the details, and I also have a "general" stored in another table. This amount is redundant for performance, but can be recalculated, if necessary, from this transaction table.

Which is better in terms of performance, bearing in mind that several people will simultaneously use INSERTING (never UPDATE) for this table, which is never read?

Should I use InnoDB or MyISAM?

(I already have performance problems, I am not optimizing ahead of schedule)

+3
source share
3 answers

To do this, use the ARCHIVE storage method. This was done for this type of multitasking read-almost-never.

+4
source

Usually you use MyISAM for tables that are just growing. MyISAM also has the advantage of supporting MERGE tables, so you don't need to have only one huge table.

But if you're never going to read, why use a table at all? Just write directly to the file. I'm curious what your performance problems are. You can see the type of Blackhole table with replication. Blackhole on the master, MyISAM or Archive on the slave.

+2
source

You can also use MyISAM with INSERT DELAYED to instantly return from your insert and have mysql inserting this data when it is idle in a separate thread. This will speed up the insertion from the point of view of the application, avoid insertion competition. However, it reveals inconsistent data if the server crashed before recording ...

0
source

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1769103/


All Articles