Not the answer you need?
Register and ask your own question!

innodb_file_per_table vs ibdata1 performance

ErshErsh EntrantInactive User Role Beginner
Good day to all.

When i was choosing between file_per_table and "all in one" - ibdata some time ago, i googled this article - http://umangg.blogspot.ru/2010/02/innodbfilepertable.html
Yes, it's 2010 and it says, that ibdata architecture shows more perfomance, then file_per_table.

Can anyone approve it?

Comments

  • mirfanmirfan Database Administrator Inactive User Role Beginner
    Hi,

    I tought it's hard to say which way you get better performance. I think better is to choose either shared tablespace or separate tablespace as per your database configuration, work load etc to achieve better performance. For instance, innodb_file_per_table is good when you are often truncates tables to reclaim disk space, to compress data, backup/restore partially i.e. single table/database, storing tables on separate disks etc I believe innodb_file_per_table edge on ibdata1.

    Thanks,. .
Sign In or Register to comment.

MySQL, InnoDB, MariaDB and MongoDB are trademarks of their respective owners.
Copyright ©2005 - 2020 Percona LLC. All rights reserved.