ekompute wrote: > Hi, I am confused as to choosing which options: > > - InnoDB OR MyISAM > - MySQL 4.1/5.0 binary OR MySQL 4.1/5.0 UTF-8 OR MySQL 4.0 > backwards-compatible UTF-8
Then choose the defaults :) > I am hosting it in Hostgator, a public web installation. Mediawiki says in > the installation: > > InnoDB is best for public web installations, since it has good concurrency > support. MyISAM may be faster in single-user installations. MyISAM databases > tend to get corrupted more often than InnoDB databases. > However, my previous webhost proposed MyISAM. Also Mediawiki says: > > In *binary mode*, MediaWiki stores UTF-8 text to the database in binary > fields. This is more efficient than MySQL's UTF-8 mode, and allows you to > use the full range of Unicode characters. In *UTF-8 mode*, MySQL will know > what character set your data is in, and can present and convert it > appropriately, but it won't let you store characters above the Basic > Multilingual > Plane<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapping_of_Unicode_character_planes>. > > > but my previous webhost proposed MySQL 4.0 backwards-compatible UTF-8. > > I plan to use InnoDB and MySQL 4.1/5.0 binary. Is this a wise decision? Yes. You shouldn't have problems with it. _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
