|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Stub-class)|
I'm going to flag the article as biased. I'm not the expert on DBMS, but this does not seem to be a fair comparison between the two storage engines. In addition, such a comparison should be a separate article such that it does not affect the neutrality of this particular article. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia or Technical Manual?
I am removing the following line because it's useless. I think the opening sentence "MyISAM is the default storage engine for the MySQL" already covers this.
- Normally, the
ENGINEoption is unnecessary; MyISAM is the default storage engine unless the default has been changed.
I am also removing code examples. Stuff like this belongs in the MySQL manual (feel free to link to it), especially minor details such as the deprecation of the TYPE parameter in favour of ENGINE.
--Avochelm 06:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
New article? Comparison of MySQL Storage Engines
The largest sections of the MyISAM and InnoDB articles seem to be large lists comparing one with the other. I propose that a new article be created to compare them with each other (and possibly other available storage engines). ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur. It should either be a stand-alone page or added to a new page: Comparison of Database Engines. However, the Database engine page is fairly short, so I will add it there along with a redirect. I will need to flag the new section as biased until we can do some more research and improve the comparison. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Inconsistency in text
The text says that each table is being saved as three different files. Then, it states that there is a data file and an index file. It also says that MySQL uses another file, but clearly states that this file is *not* part of the MyISAM engine. Where is the third file type, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.lindner (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)