[rt-users] Sessions Table is MyISAM

[Ruslan Zakirov]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Micah Gersten <micah at onshore.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 07:22 PM, Ruslan Zakirov wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Micah Gersten <micah at onshore.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/22/2009 08:05 AM, Jesse Vincent wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 07:15:09PM -0700, Behzad Mahini wrote:
>>>>> I have done a fresh installation of RT 3.8.4,  and have done no
>>>>> modifications of any sort to the default installation.....and was
>>>>> preparing to do my database backup (using mysqldump),and noticed the
>>>>> only table that has a MyISAM engine is the 'Sessions' Table (the rest
>>>>> are all InnoDB as expected).
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that all of these tables were to have been of the
>>>>> InnoDB engine type (RT's transaction-based requirements/
>>>>> recommendations).
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Is this by design, or due to an unresolved bug?
>>>> Closer to the former than the latter.
>>>>
>>> What are the benefits of the Sessions table being MyISAM now that InnoDB
>>> read/write throughput is in most cases superior to MyISAM?
>> No reason for a long time. Except converting needs upgrade script to
>> handle existing instances. Also, it's not trivial to measure real RT
>> oriented performance impact to force development. Simulating spherical
>> horses in vacuum is not enough for motivation :)
>>
> So, it could break future upgrades then?

I do belive several companies use InnoDB for sessions. If we would
implement such change in the core RT then we try to make sure that
upgrade script doesn't change anything when the table is already
InnoDB. Basicly - it's ok to switch.

-- 
Best regards, Ruslan.