3 ms·

Is this a joke? Data must fit in RAM, no joins over >2 tables, no transactions, no builtin support for clustering/sharding/horizontal scaling whatsoever. What

• chris_wot 14y ago
  That's a little harsh I think. It still has a transaction log, so it has certain advantages over memory tables. Some interesting enhancements to indexes also. And it is also binary compatible with MySQL, so you can actually add it as a MySQL node. I'd say it's a database for a niche market, as one of the folks from MemSQL has been saying. It would fit in nicely under a few scenarios.
• old-gregg 14y ago
  On the other hand, if your data fits in RAM and you don't need to join more than two tables and you don't need clustering/sharding whatsoever and you need the full power of SQL, what would you use? > ..something purpose-built (redis)? Errr maybe "features" like GROUP BY with HAVING? I think you're trolling, Mr Moe.
  • moe 14y ago
    trolling Says the guy who resorts to selective quoting to make a point? You may want to review my original comment where I mention two other options.
    • MuGo 14y ago
      nope. you're definitely a troll
• tigerBL00D 14y ago
  Advantages are clear. Blazing speed, transactional durability, ease of use and flexibility that come from using a well known protocol and SQL dialect. Did I miss something?
• AaronBBrown 14y ago
  MEMORY tables have table-level locks and from a concurrency perspective, is just as bad as MyISAM, so really offer no advantage unless there is only a small number of consumers. A well tuned InnoDB table will outperform the MEMORY engine )(after the warm-up period) as soon as you have more than a handful of users performing write operations.