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: 241

Filed under:
|
|
|
|

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:

  1. 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?)

  2. 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

Related posts about mysql

Related posts about memory