3

Just wondering what the best storage engine to use for my website would be? I manually enter values into the database - there is no user input being put into the database itself. It basically holds short values, as well as some short URLs (for images based on the content). I noticed on the empty table I have InnoDB has a 3,690MB overhead..which seems a little extreme considering it's not being accessed.

Would MyISAM be better? Suggestions?

EDIT: All I'm really doing, aside from manually inputting the values in phpMyAdmin is querying the rows and displaying the data on the page using variables.

Rob
  • 153
  • 1
  • 2
  • 11
  • possible duplicate of [MyISAM versus InnoDB](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20148/myisam-versus-innodb) – Michael Berkowski May 21 '12 at 20:13
  • heaven forbid we have a debate of the pros and cons of database engines. Someone might learn a whole lot if they read it. Seems like a super constructive effort. But I am sure you point whores know what is best for us all. – pathfinder Sep 07 '16 at 02:11

1 Answers1

6

As a general recommendation, use InnoDB, 3.690Mb is nothing.

For more details: MyISAM versus InnoDB

Community
  • 1
  • 1
santiagobasulto
  • 11,320
  • 11
  • 64
  • 88
  • I saw that, but mine is (if I had to give you an estimate) going to be 2% writes, and 98% reads. The database itself is only ever going to have an insert once a week, as opposed to being queried over 200 times a day. Just wanted to make sure to optimize as it's my understanding that InnoDB can be slow (though queries are generally lightning fast regardless of storage format). – Rob May 21 '12 at 20:26
  • No, actually, the indexes created by InnoDB are more efficient than those created by MyISAM. Being clustered is the main reason, but there are other things to consider too. The only advantage from MyISAM i can think, is Full text search. IF you need that, you've got to use MyISAM. – santiagobasulto May 21 '12 at 20:42