I'm about to start working through converting a large MySQL installation to InnoDB. For the particular use case durability is desired, and with MyISAM a loss of power almost certainly guarantees data loss. Durability is not available as an option.
So the normal question people ask is.. okay, what do I pay for this feature?
I think if you are looking at the workload in question I actually believe InnoDB will perform better overall. Row-level locking, multiversion concurrency control, and the correct selection of hardware (fast-disks with a RAID controller + batter backed write cache) will really help it shine.
But my problem is that InnoDB could be better in 9 situations, and worse in 1. What matters more than anything else is performance regressions. That is...
"Our Customers Feel the Variance, Not the Mean" - a key concept in Six Sigma.
The way I like to explain this, is that if we were to go to a restaurant and order the same meal - or go to Toyota and order the same car, we should receive the same product. I can't get the equivalent to a race car and you get a Trabant. Nor can we allow some queries that were already fast enough get faster, and other queries become intolerably slower.
So what I am actively trying to do is identify situations where MyISAM will be faster than InnoDB. And so far I have on my watch list:
- Table Scans - MyISAM data is far more compact, and typically table scans need to examine far less data.
- Index Scans - In InnoDB, indexes will contain multiple versions and typically be much larger.
- Inserts - MyISAM has a special optimization where it can just insert into the end of a table. I think even with the battery backed write cache this will be hard to beat.
- Single-threaded workloads - maybe there's an hourly cron that in InnoDB will take significantly longer. InnoDB really performs better in concurrent workloads.
I should also note that durability is not the only reason to use InnoDB. Operational tasks like backups become much easier. But that's the subject for a different post