← Back to team overview

drizzle-discuss team mailing list archive

Re: tables must have a primary key

 

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:41:26 +0200, Arjen Lentz <arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  From observation, the appear to be other consequences to not  
> specifying a primary key for InnoDB, in terms of locking behaviour and  
> such.
> So the implicit rowid/pk thing is, apparently, not quite equivalent.

my auto-increment implementation is quite different than the innobase
one.

Since we don't at all care about or support statement based replication,
we can be a lot more sane in locking (or lack thereof).

Although I'm not really caring about performance yet... in theory the
embedded_innodb auto increment implementation should be much better.
-- 
Stewart Smith



Follow ups

References