Re: [Nagios-devel] NDO - why not innodb?
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:48 am
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3270466105_3133977
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
On 8/20/07 12:14 PM, "S=E9bastien Barbereau" wrote:
> Just adding my two cents here:
> The question of wether to use InnoDB or MyISAM, or MYSQL rather than PGSQ=
L
> comes down IMHO to the question of your DB admin. I had mixed reports on
> performance with InnoDB and/or PGSQL, and I feel more comfortable with My=
SQL
> as I never had problems with it. On the other hand, InnoDB foreign key su=
pport
> is really nice considering the ndodb table structure.
> =20
> What would maybe be more interresting (for the community) is rather than =
stick
> to a specific database kind, use an abstraction layer in the ndo module.
> Therefore one could use whatever database you wish : mysql, pgsql and why=
not
> oracle or sybase? I don't think it really mathers to Nagios what kind of =
DB we
> are using (it should not).
>=20
> This could have a course some "performance" drawbacks in terms of query
> optimization ...
I generally agree with what you said. One of the problems though is when
different DB vendors speak different SQL dialects. You really need to make
sure your abstraction layer handles this well. It may even preclude the us=
e
of some DBs. E.g., MySQL
Re: [Nagios-devel] NDO - why not innodb?
On 8/=
20/07 12:14 PM, "Sébastien Barbereau" <[email protected]=
om> wrote:
Just adding my two cents here:
The question of wether to use InnoDB or MyISAM, or MYSQL rather than PGSQL =
comes down IMHO to the question of your DB admin. I had mixed reports on per=
formance with InnoDB and/or PGSQL, and I feel more comfortable with MySQL as=
I never had problems with it. On the other hand, InnoDB foreign key support=
is really nice considering the ndodb table structure.
What would maybe be more interresting (for the community) is rather than st=
ick to a specific database kind, use an abstraction layer in the ndo module.=
Therefore one could use whatever database you wish : mysql, pgsql and why n=
ot oracle or sybase? I don't think it really mathers to Nagios what kind of =
DB we are using (it should not).
This could have a course some "performance" drawbacks in terms of=
query optimization ...
I generally agree with what you said. One of the problems though is w=
hen different DB vendors speak different SQL dialects. You really need=
to make sure your abstraction layer handles this well. It may even pr=
eclude the use of some DBs. E.g., MySQL < 4.1 does not support sub-=
selects. Not using them isn’t just a case of query optimization =
— they’re the only way to solve certain problems without buildin=
g an in-memory model of the DB.
--
Kevin
--B_3270466105_3133977--
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3270466105_3133977
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
On 8/20/07 12:14 PM, "S=E9bastien Barbereau" wrote:
> Just adding my two cents here:
> The question of wether to use InnoDB or MyISAM, or MYSQL rather than PGSQ=
L
> comes down IMHO to the question of your DB admin. I had mixed reports on
> performance with InnoDB and/or PGSQL, and I feel more comfortable with My=
SQL
> as I never had problems with it. On the other hand, InnoDB foreign key su=
pport
> is really nice considering the ndodb table structure.
> =20
> What would maybe be more interresting (for the community) is rather than =
stick
> to a specific database kind, use an abstraction layer in the ndo module.
> Therefore one could use whatever database you wish : mysql, pgsql and why=
not
> oracle or sybase? I don't think it really mathers to Nagios what kind of =
DB we
> are using (it should not).
>=20
> This could have a course some "performance" drawbacks in terms of query
> optimization ...
I generally agree with what you said. One of the problems though is when
different DB vendors speak different SQL dialects. You really need to make
sure your abstraction layer handles this well. It may even preclude the us=
e
of some DBs. E.g., MySQL
Re: [Nagios-devel] NDO - why not innodb?
On 8/=
20/07 12:14 PM, "Sébastien Barbereau" <[email protected]=
om> wrote:
Just adding my two cents here:
The question of wether to use InnoDB or MyISAM, or MYSQL rather than PGSQL =
comes down IMHO to the question of your DB admin. I had mixed reports on per=
formance with InnoDB and/or PGSQL, and I feel more comfortable with MySQL as=
I never had problems with it. On the other hand, InnoDB foreign key support=
is really nice considering the ndodb table structure.
What would maybe be more interresting (for the community) is rather than st=
ick to a specific database kind, use an abstraction layer in the ndo module.=
Therefore one could use whatever database you wish : mysql, pgsql and why n=
ot oracle or sybase? I don't think it really mathers to Nagios what kind of =
DB we are using (it should not).
This could have a course some "performance" drawbacks in terms of=
query optimization ...
I generally agree with what you said. One of the problems though is w=
hen different DB vendors speak different SQL dialects. You really need=
to make sure your abstraction layer handles this well. It may even pr=
eclude the use of some DBs. E.g., MySQL < 4.1 does not support sub-=
selects. Not using them isn’t just a case of query optimization =
— they’re the only way to solve certain problems without buildin=
g an in-memory model of the DB.
--
Kevin
--B_3270466105_3133977--
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]