On 02/21/13 03:44, Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:
> What strategy would you suggest to "shrink" an innodb-based DB short
> of dumping, dropping and re-importing it? I feel more comfortable with
> the file-base approach probably because it resembles the dearly loved
> MyISAM behaviour ;) 

That "dearly loved" behavior isn't such a great thing when you're
working with a customer with a hundred thousand tables.  ;)

> Can you put a number on the increased memory consumption? 

The increased memory consumption is incremental.  The increased disk
consumption can be significant.

That said, I'm given to understand that innodb_file_per_table is on by
default in MySQL 5.6.  I don't yet know the rationale behind this.  It
should be noted that 5.6 does also have a copy-table-for-export
capability, which creates a standalone tablespace that *IS* portable and
can be moved and imported into another MySQL server.


-- 
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric AT caerllewys DOT net   alaric AT metrocast DOT net   phil AT 
co.ordinate DOT org
  Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, SQL wrangler, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users