我在表格中简要地讨论了这个问题，这样你就可以决定是使用InnoDB还是MyISAM。

下面是在哪种情况下应该使用哪种db存储引擎的一个小概述:

                                                 MyISAM   InnoDB
----------------------------------------------------------------
Required full-text search                        Yes      5.6.4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Require transactions                                      Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frequent select queries                          Yes      
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frequent insert, update, delete                           Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Row locking (multi processing on single table)            Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Relational base design                                    Yes

总结

在几乎所有的情况下，InnoDB都是最好的选择 但是，经常阅读，几乎不写，使用MyISAM 全文搜索MySQL <= 5.5，使用MyISAM

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。

有点偏离主题，但为了文档的目的和完整性，我想添加以下内容。

一般来说，使用InnoDB会使应用程序变得不那么复杂，可能也更没有bug。因为可以将所有引用完整性(外键约束)放入数据模型中，所以不需要像使用MyISAM时那样多的应用程序代码。

Every time you insert, delete or replace a record, you will HAVE to check and maintain the relationships. E.g. if you delete a parent, all children should be deleted too. For instance, even in a simple blogging system, if you delete a blogposting record, you will have to delete the comment records, the likes, etc. In InnoDB this is done automatically by the database engine (if you specified the contraints in the model) and requires no application code. In MyISAM this will have to be coded into the application, which is very difficult in web-servers. Web-servers are by nature very concurrent / parallel and because these actions should be atomical and MyISAM supports no real transactions, using MyISAM for web-servers is risky / error-prone.

而且在大多数情况下，InnoDB会表现得更好，原因有很多，其中一个原因是它能够使用记录级锁而不是表级锁。不仅在写比读更频繁的情况下，在大型数据集上有复杂连接的情况下也是如此。我们注意到，对于非常大的连接(需要几分钟)，使用InnoDB表比MyISAM表性能提高了3倍。

我想说的是，在使用MySQL时，InnoDB(使用3NF数据模型，具有引用完整性)应该是默认的选择。MyISAM只能在非常具体的情况下使用。它很可能会执行更少，导致应用程序更大，bug更多。

话虽如此。数据模型是一门很少在网页设计师/程序员中发现的艺术。无意冒犯，但这确实解释了MyISAM被如此广泛使用的原因。

对于这样的读写比率，我猜InnoDB会表现得更好。 既然您可以接受脏读，那么您可以(如果您负担得起)复制到一个从服务器，并让您的所有读都到从服务器。另外，考虑批量插入，而不是一次插入一条记录。

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。

我发现即使Myisam有锁争用，它在大多数情况下仍然比InnoDb快，因为它使用了快速的锁获取方案。我尝试了几次Innodb，总是因为这样或那样的原因回到MyIsam。此外，InnoDB在巨大的写负载下会非常消耗CPU。