Falcon has the performance, reliability and scalability you need to match your application requirements.
This statement must be from the future as there is no production release today.
Row-level replication (instead of statement-based replication) is required when replicating Falcon objects.
This might be enough to keep me from upgrading, but I am not sure if this is limited to Falcon. Will future MySQL releases require the use of row based replication? Having SQL statements in the binlog is invaluable to me and I am not willing to give that up.
True clustered indexes on InnoDB tables would not be migrated and function on Falcon as they do on InnoDB.
Most descriptions of Falcon discuss the differences between clustered indexes for InnoDB and the index scan optimizations done for Falcon. This one does not. Index range scans on the primary key index for Falcon tables do not behave the same as InnoDB and are likely to use more IO in many cases.
Falcon excels in processing short to medium-sized transactions on multi-CPU hardware, and is therefore ideal for most online database applications.Does this mean that Falcon is targeted towards OLTP and will not do well for data warehouse queries? InnoDB is great at both. I think Maria will be great at both, although I would be happy to use it if it supported crash recovery and many readers concurrent with 1 writer, but not concurrent writers.
The plan is to have a GA release of Falcon in mid-2008, but is dependent on the information gathered from the alpha and beta testing periods.
Has the plan changed? We are not that far off from mid-2008. What are the release targets for 5.1 and 6.0 and which one has priority?