the current differences between MyISAM and InnoDB storage engines

原文地址：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47680213/what-are-the-current-differences-between-myisam-and-innodb-storage-engines-speci

Your assumption that MyISAM has been receiving new development is not correct. MyISAM is not receiving any significant new development. MySQL is clearly moving in the direction of phasing out MyISAM, and using MyISAM is discouraged.

Oracle Corp. has not announced any specific date or version by which they will remove MyISAM. My guess is that MyISAM will never be fully removed, because there are too many sites that wouldn't be able to upgrade, without doing expensive testing to make sure their specific app won't experience any regression issues by converting to InnoDB.

But you might notice that in the MySQL 5.7 manual, the section on MyISAM has been demoted to Alternative Storage Engines, which should be a clue that it's receiving less priority.

In MySQL 5.7, MyISAM is still used for some of the system tables, like mysql.user, mysql.db, etc. But new system tables introduced in 5.6 and 5.7 are InnoDB. All system tables are InnoDB in MySQL 8.0.

MyISAM still does not support any of the properties of ACID. There are no transactions, no consistency features, and no durable writes. See my answer to MyISAM versus InnoDB.

MyISAM still does not support foreign keys, for what it's worth. But I seldom see real production sites using foreign keys even with InnoDB.

MyISAM supports only table-level locking (except for some INSERT appending to the end of a table, as noted in the manual).

MySQL 5.7 supports both fulltext indexes and spatial indexes in both MyISAM and InnoDB. These features are not reasons to continue using MyISAM as they once were.

Both logical backup tools like mysqldump and physical backup tools like Percona XtraBackup can't back up MyISAM tables without acquiring a global lock.

You asked if you could create a variety of tables with different storage engines in the same schema. Yes, you can, and this is the same as it has been for many versions of MySQL.

You asked if you can join tables of different storage engines (by the way, tables don't need to be in the same schema to be joined). Yes, you can join such tables, MySQL takes care of all the details. This is the same as it has been for many versions of MySQL.

But some weird cases can come up when you do this, like what if you update a MyISAM table and an InnoDB table in a transaction, and then roll back? The changes in the InnoDB table are rolled back, but the changes in the MyISAM table are not rolled back, so your data integrity can be broken if you aren't careful. This is also the same as it has been for many versions of MySQL.

Cases where MyISAM has an advantage over InnoDB is a short list, and it's getting shorter.

• Some table-scan queries and bulk inserts are faster in MyISAM. InnoDB is better at indexed searches.

• MyISAM may use less storage space than the equivalent data stored in an uncompressedInnoDB table. You can further compact MyISAM tables with myisampack, but this makes the MyISAM table read-only.

  There are other options these days for compact storage of data in transactional storage engines, for example InnoDB table compression, or MyRocks.

• SELECT COUNT(*) FROM MyTable queries (with no WHERE clause) are very fast in MyISAM, because the accurate count of rows is persisted in the MyISAM metadata. InnoDB (or other MVCC implementations) doesn't keep this count persisted, because every transaction viewing the table might "see" a different row count. Only a storage engine that has table-level locking and no transaction isolation like MyISAM, can optimize this case.

• Auto-increment that numbers independently for each distinct value in another key column. Again, this requires table-level locking, so it's not supported in InnoDB.

  CREATE TABLE MyTable (
    group_id INT NOT NULL,
    seq_id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
    PRIMARY KEY (group_id, seq_id)
  ) ENGINE=MyISAM;

• It's still easy to move a MyISAM table from server to server, because the .MYD and .MYI files are self-contained. You can kind of do something similar with InnoDB tables, but you have to use the intricate feature of transportable tablespaces. But this easy-to-move-tables quality of MyISAM no longer works in MySQL 8.0, because of their new data dictionary feature.

• Under certain load, MyISAM might be a better choice for internal_tmp_disk_storage_engine, which defaults to InnoDB in MySQL 5.7. If you run lots of queries that create temp tables on disk (in-memory temp tables won't benefit), it can put a strain on the InnoDB engine. But you'd have to have a high query rate for this to matter, and if your queries create so many temp tables on disk, you should try to optimize the queries differently.

• MyISAM allows you to set multiple key caches, and define caches for specific tables. But the MyISAM key caches are only for index structures, not for data.

References:

https://www.percona.com/blog/2016/10/11/mysql-8-0-end-myisam/

https://www.percona.com/blog/2017/12/04/internal-temporary-tables-mysql-5-7/

http://jfg-mysql.blogspot.com/2017/08/why-we-still-need-myisam.html

中文文章非常好：http://blog.51cto.com/13126942/2043972