We have a database with 120 tables. We have very few DELETE on tables.
- 8% of tables (log tables) with heavy INSERT
- 72% of tables with medium-low INSERT, SELECT
- 17% of tables with medium-heavy SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE
- 3% of tables with extreme heavy SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE (table sized are
Currently, we are using MyISAM table type (version: 3.23.52) and we are going to upgrade to the latest version and switch to
InnoDB table type.

Should we just convert all tables to InnoDB?
If we want to have mixed table type, is there any advantage or disadvantage of having database with mixed table type?
Is there an rule of thumb to decide whith table type we should use?

Ask yourself if you need to implement the features that InnoDB provides.

• Do you require referential integrity?
• Is there are need to process transactions?
• Do you have issues with inconsitent cross-table selects?
• Do you require rollback?

If you need to implement the features that InnoDB provides, then yes, use them. If you are thinking of using them because they're 'more like grown-up database tables', don't.

I've not had much experience of mixing table types so I can't really comment on this issue I'm afriad.

Regards,
Matt.

thank you.

Currently, we want the most is the row-level locking that InnoDB provided. We have big queries that usually lock the table that cause our database performance downgrade.

We will start implement transaction and referential integrity later.