我尝试在MyISAM和InnoDB表中插入随机数据。结果相当令人震惊。MyISAM插入100万行的时间比InnoDB插入1万行的时间少几秒钟!

根据我的经验，MyISAM是一个更好的选择，只要你不做delete、update、大量的单个INSERT、事务和全文索引。顺便说一句，CHECK TABLE太可怕了。随着表的行数越来越老，你不知道它什么时候会结束。

人们经常谈论性能、读写、外键等等，但在我看来，存储引擎还有一个必须具备的特性:原子更新。

试试这个:

Issue an UPDATE against your MyISAM table that takes 5 seconds. While the UPDATE is in progress, say 2.5 seconds in, hit Ctrl-C to interrupt it. Observe the effects on the table. How many rows were updated? How many were not updated? Is the table even readable, or was it corrupted when you hit Ctrl-C? Try the same experiment with UPDATE against an InnoDB table, interrupting the query in progress. Observe the InnoDB table. Zero rows were updated. InnoDB has assured you have atomic updates, and if the full update could not be committed, it rolls back the whole change. Also, the table is not corrupt. This works even if you use killall -9 mysqld to simulate a crash.

性能当然是可取的，但不丢失数据更重要。

简而言之，如果你的工作需要一个可靠的数据库来处理大量的INSERT和UPDATE指令，InnoDB是很好的选择。

而且，如果你需要的数据库需要大量的读(SELECT)指令而不是写(INSERT和UPDATES)， MyISAM是很好的，考虑到它在表锁方面的缺点。

你可能想去看看; InnoDB的优缺点 MyISAM的利弊

InnoDB offers:

ACID transactions
row-level locking
foreign key constraints
automatic crash recovery
table compression (read/write)
spatial data types (no spatial indexes)

在InnoDB中，一行中除TEXT和BLOB外的所有数据最多占用8000字节。InnoDB没有全文索引。在InnoDB中，COUNT(*)s(当WHERE, GROUP BY或JOIN不使用时)执行速度比MyISAM慢，因为行数没有存储在内部。InnoDB将数据和索引存储在一个文件中。InnoDB使用缓冲池来缓存数据和索引。

MyISAM提供：

fast COUNT(*)s (when WHERE, GROUP BY, or JOIN is not used)
full text indexing
smaller disk footprint
very high table compression (read only)
spatial data types and indexes (R-tree)

MyISAM has table-level locking, but no row-level locking. No transactions. No automatic crash recovery, but it does offer repair table functionality. No foreign key constraints. MyISAM tables are generally more compact in size on disk when compared to InnoDB tables. MyISAM tables could be further highly reduced in size by compressing with myisampack if needed, but become read-only. MyISAM stores indexes in one file and data in another. MyISAM uses key buffers for caching indexes and leaves the data caching management to the operating system.

总的来说，我推荐InnoDB用于大多数用途，MyISAM仅用于特殊用途。InnoDB现在是MySQL新版本的默认引擎。

对于一个有更多写和读的负载，你将受益于InnoDB。因为InnoDB提供的是行锁而不是表锁，所以你的select可以是并发的，不仅仅是彼此之间的select，还有许多insert。但是，除非你打算使用SQL事务，否则将InnoDB提交刷新设置为2 (innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit)。这将为您提供大量原始性能，否则将表从MyISAM转移到InnoDB时会损失这些性能。

Also, consider adding replication. This gives you some read scaling and since you stated your reads don't have to be up-to-date, you can let the replication fall behind a little. Just be sure that it can catch up under anything but the heaviest traffic or it will always be behind and will never catch up. If you go this way, however, I strongly recommend you isolate reading from the slaves and replication lag management to your database handler. It is so much simpler if the application code does not know about this.

最后，要注意不同的表负载。您不会在所有表上都有相同的读/写比率。一些接近100%读取的小表可以负担得起MyISAM。同样地，如果你有一些接近100%写的表，你可能会受益于INSERT DELAYED，但这只在MyISAM中支持(对于InnoDB表，DELAYED子句会被忽略)。

但基准是肯定的。