3 ms·
No one has been using MyISAM for the last 10 years.
by Thaxll 7y ago
No one has been using MyISAM for the last 10 years.
- rayrrr 7y agoFunnily enough, I have not been using MySQL for the last 10 years either, because I switched to Postgres and never went back.
- evanelias 7y agoFair, but why comment on MySQL's supposed deficiencies if your knowledge of it is so out-of-date?
- Thaxll 7y agoBut vanilla PG didn't get good master / slave feature until "recently" so you were running without replicas in the last 10 years? https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1235/ https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1235/
- bjt 7y agoYour link is from 9 years ago.
- nevertoolate 7y agoThis happens when someone asks a versus question on a Sunday.
- Thaxll 7y agoThe release from 9 years ago was not even close to what MySQL was offering at the time.
- AdrianB1 7y agoUnfortunately this is not true, I found it used in the most unexpected places, even new developments as old as 2-3 years.
- miahi 7y agoThat's mostly because it's the default in some versions and the developers don't know/care that MyISAM is dangerous (as it's not transactional and it will transparently ignore any kind of foreign key statement).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mike22 7y agoWe specifically had to switch to MyISAM for some things when upgrading from 5.5 to 5.7, in 2017. We were hitting InnoDB’s 4k row limit in many cases (without clobs). Fortunately the tables in question are filled once, updated a couples times right after, and from then on only read, so lack of ACID is ok just for that. (All the real transactional tables are InnoDB.)