MySQL table_cache: Is lower better?

Events happening in the community are now at Drupal community events on www.drupal.org.
Lloyd's picture

In the past, using MySQL tuning scripts like mysqltuner.pl and tuning-primer.sh have always suggested increasing table_cache to fairly high levels. I've now been reading a few articles about benchmarks that have suggested a lower table_cache can often result in better performance (one such blog post at http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/11/16/table_cache-negative-scal...).

So I was wondering what experiences people have had running Drupal sites in terms of tweaking table_cache.

Comments

Read the comments after the article

mikeytown2's picture

... In Innodb table_cache is not so much relevant as it keeps all tables open anyway.

My recommendation is to switch to InnoDB

Generally these tuning

dalin's picture

Generally these tuning scripts are good at telling you when something needs to be increased from the default, but are not good at knowing when to stop telling you to increase, or when to tell you to decrease.

For most of the buffers and caches I generally don't go beyond 4x the default. The major exception being innodb_buffer_pool which is generally beneficial to make as large as possible, up to 80% of RAM.

--


Dave Hansen-Lange
Director of Technical Strategy, Advomatic.com
Pronouns: he/him/his

High performance

Group notifications

This group offers an RSS feed. Or subscribe to these personalized, sitewide feeds: