Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Databases Programming Software Data Storage IT

MySQL AB Calls v4.1.7 Production Ready 59

Posted by timothy from the world's-fastest-recipe-book dept.
puppetman writes "MySQL announced a few hours ago that 4.1 has been deemed production ready with the release of 4.1.7. The major enhancements of 4.1 include sub-selects, faster communication between client and server (thanks to parameter binding), replication over SSL, and lots more. A full list can be found here. Time to rehash those tired arguments about why MySQL is not a real database, and (Postgres/Oracle/SQL Server/Access/SAPDB/Ingres/etc) is the only real database out there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MySQL AB Calls v4.1.7 Production Ready More

MySQL AB Calls v4.1.7 Production Ready

Comments Filter:

  • Production ready? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pan T. Hose ( 707794 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:03PM (#10636474) Homepage Journal
    Does the "production readiness" include ACID?

    • Re:Production ready? (Score:4, Informative)

      by zatz ( 37585 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:12PM (#10636557) Homepage
      Sure, just use the InnoDB storage engine.
      • But then MySQL is just as slow as Postgresql. Except you are missing 99% of the features.

  • MySQL (Score:4, Insightful)

    by m0rph3us0 ( 549631 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:14PM (#10636568)
    MySQL is fine for load/store operations or other places where complex operations on set are not required. MySQL is not suitable for complex queries.

    MySQL is a bit like Windows 98 vs. a multi-user OS with virtual memory. Most people just need a single user computer that holds their email and lets them play games.
    However, for those who need the features a multi-user OS they cannot simply hack on those features to Windows 98.
    It isn't that MySQL isn't a real database it is just that its feature set severely restricts the tasks it is able to do well.
    Yes, you COULD build a bank on MySQL just like Diebold makes Windows 98 based ATM machines.

    Whether it is a better idea to simply build your bank on Postgresql or Oracle and pay higher machine / licensing costs is an excersize for the reader.

    There are spots where Win98 and MySQL are well suited however, there are a lot of cases where it is completely out classed by other products.

    Myself, I'd much rather not use all the features of Postgresql and have them available later than build on Mysql and if I need the feature have to port the application. If I run up against performance limitations of Postgresql I simply buy better hardware.

    Not everyones SQL usage is limited to "SELECT * from comments were story_id = 23456"

    Hardware is almost always cheaper than a programmer's time.

    • What features are you looking for?

      My favorite feature of MySQL is how easy it is to learn and how fast it is.

    • Re:MySQL (Score:3, Informative)

      by zatz ( 37585 )
      MySQL is not suitable for complex queries.

      Actually, with the new support for derived tables in 4.1, it's as good as any other database product I have used (Informix, MSSQL/Sybase, Postgres). I have a production system which generates large, hairy SELECT statements (I've encountered MySQL's internal limit of 61 tables in a single join, to give you some idea how awful these can be) and runs them on a database with millions of records. It's quite fast (with appropriate choice of indexes) and implements all

  • wheelbarrow? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vaevictis666 ( 680137 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:18PM (#10636590)
    Ok, I'll bite. Why is the Databases icon a wheelbarrow?
  • I usually pronounce it as my-ess-que-ell.

    Others say my-sequel

    Is there a correct answer? I see it in print 1000 times more often then use it verbally, so I don't have a good base to judge from.

    • From what I know, both are correct.

      Personally I despise the "Sequel" pronounciation. It goes right with tickle, fffp, erc,roffle, etc

      If there isn't a fucking vowel, don't try to add one.
      • Or you could just chill out and realize that about half of IT professions say "Sequel," "Sequel Server," and "My-See-Quell."

        I say My-Ess-Que-El, but I've always said "Microsoft Sequel Server." I think it's just the culture of your region or something, but there's really no reason to get worked up over it, dude.
      • As I recall, "Sequel" was the name of a product/language that existed back when the SQL standard was being written ... someone decided to pick a similar name, to keep continuation (make sure people know that SQL is also about databases) ... which is part of why the acronym has meant various things to various people at various times, with no correct answer. As far as I'm concerned, if you say "sequel" you either mean the noun, or you mean the very old product/language, not SQL-92 or any other incarnations of
        • "sequel" is standard english query language, a pre-cursor to sql which is standard query language.

          Perhaps people who pronounce "sequel" are pretending to more years of experience than they have?

          In any case, people who say "sequel" always sound like idiots to me. I admit this is my bias but there it is. I can't help it yet. Sorry.

          Sam
      • Ess-que-ell here, too. I'm a self-taught programmer, I never spoke verbally to anyone about this stuff until I went to uni in my 30's, by which time I'd already been programming for years 'n' years.

        The one that really ticks me off is 'lie-nux'. My brother-in-law is the only person I know who pronounces it like that, and he works in IT!

        • Linus has mentioned that the way "Linux" is pronounced depends largely on how a given country pronounces his name. In varying places, his name is pronounced "Lie-nus," "Li-nus," or "Lee-nus," and so local conventions for "Linux" vary accordingly.
      • Personally I despise the "Sequel" pronounciation. It goes right with tickle, fffp, erc,roffle, etc
        If there isn't a fucking vowel, don't try to add one.
        Hey, take it easy. I learned from someone who called it "sequel", so that's what I say.

        From what I know, both are correct.
        Actually another post in this thread linked to mysql.com, your pronunciation is correct. So I know I'm saying it incorrectly, I just don't really care enough to start correcting myself.
    • I usually pronounce it as my-ess-que-ell.

      I believe that is how it is intended to be pronounced. I remember a long time ago they actually told you how to pronounce it on their website.
    • There is no correct answer.

      People say S-Q-L and Sequel for simply SQL. Personally, I say the former, but pretty much every SQL books has a paragraph devoted to this dilemma.

    • I pronounce it as "my squill," rhyming with swill. I do not object to pronouncing it "my squeal" though.

      The pig analogy is not meant as a slight against MySQL exclusively. I also pronounce "post gres squill" and "squill lite."

      I don't understand why people put more vowel sounds in than you need.

  • Have its developers' attitudes changed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @07:26PM (#10637230)

    Does MySQL still silently substitute its best guess when you try and insert an invalid value into a column?

    Does MySQL still silently substitute a non-ACID table type when you ask for an ACID table type and it isn't available?

    Does MySQL still silently alter the data you insert into varchar columns by stripping trailing spaces?

    MySQL used to be riddled with all kinds of behaviours that the MySQL developers thought might be handy in some circumstances, but that silently alter or ignore the programmer's/DBA's instructions and the SQL specifications. Have the developers gained enough of a clue to fix these (intentional, documented) problems?

    • Re:Have its developers' attitudes changed? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by puppetman ( 131489 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:22PM (#10638400) Homepage
      1) Yes. Very bad. The developers believe the application should check all data before sending it to the database. I've posted my displeasure with this on the MySQL mailing lists, and have been told politely to "live with it".

      2) Wasn't aware that it did. Most table types are now in the basic download.

      3) Not sure

      You could ask similar questions of Oracle (or any other DBMS), like,

      Does Oracle still require a 1.2+ gigabyte footprint? Yup, getting bigger all the time.

      Is Oracle still more complex to set up than any Linux distribution? Yah. And try Real Application Clusters (RAC).

      Does Oracle still require you to spend $600 on books to get the important information about what's going on under the hood? Yes. I bought a 1000-page monster the other day, and the list price was $100 CDN. The DBA handbook, written by the same guy, is also 1000 pages, and will cost about the same (not out for another month).

      Does Oracle still charge $40,000 per CPU for a perpetual Enterprise License?

      Is Oracle still slow and bloated compared to MySQL? Yes. All those extra, needless features that 1-in-50 databases add bloat and slowness.

      For Postgres,

      Does Postgres still make really bad optimizer choices if the data-types being compared aren't identical? Last I checked.

      Does Postgres have a decent replication engine, or standby database option? Yah, if you want to spend almost as much on support as you would on an Oracle Enterprise license for 1 CPU. There are others, but I'm not sure I would throw them into a production environment. Oracle Standby and MySQL replication have both been flawless for us.

      Does Postgres have a native Windows port yet? Not yet, but I hear it's coming.

      Does Postgres still have a mailing list full of the most informed, polite people you could ever hope to answer your questions? Yup.

      No database is perfect. MySQL is a small, fast database and we are running our 2-million hit per day website off of it, and it's been flawless and significantly faster than Oracle was way back on 8i. We code around the strangeness.

      • Re:Have its developers' attitudes changed? (Score:5, Informative)

        by ttfkam ( 37064 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:38PM (#10638856) Homepage Journal
        Does Postgres still make really bad optimizer choices if the data-types being compared aren't identical? Last I checked.
        At least there's a workaround. You can always explicitly cast your value to the type in question. I don't know of any similarly straightforward workarounds for the data manipulation/loss bugs in MySQL.

      • Re:Have its developers' attitudes changed? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You could ask similar questions of Oracle (or any other DBMS)

        No, you can't. That's the whole point. Absolutely none of the questions you raise about other databases are problems with data integrity. These are databases for heaven's sake. Of course they take data integrity seriously. The same can't be said for MySQL, unfortunately.

        Does Postgres have a native Windows port yet?

        8.0 does, but that's not production-ready yet, so it doesn't count. Three betas have been released if you want to try i

        • I have it, and have tried it out. Ran into an apparent bug with creating tablespaces. But I am going to try the newer beta.

          As for data integrity, we use InnoDB for our busy website. It has lots of foreign keys, and transactions wrap every block of DML. ACID transactions all the way. That MySQL sometimes changes your data quietly to make it fit into a column, well, there's a workaround for that. It sucks, but it's livable. At the time we migrated, Postgres did not have the features we needed, and we could d
      • Does Postgres still make really bad optimizer choices if the data-types being compared aren't identical?

        In version 8.0 (current at beta4), the optimizer will automatically cast the columns to a common type and pick a better plan.

        Does Postgres have a decent replication engine, or standby database option?

        There are several. Have you looked at Slony-I ?

        Does Postgres have a native Windows port yet?

        Version 8 will. You can download the beta today if you'd like.
        • I have played with Beta 8, and the optimizer is much improved, and I am aware of Slony-I. And I did mention that a Windows port is in the works (it is in Beta 8, and I have it installed on my work machine)

          I wouldn't put it in production just yet, however. Beta is not production-ready. I wouldn't put MySQL 4.1.7 (production) in production either. I am going to let it settle down for a few months.

          I am pushing to replace a commercial database with Postgres - I really admire the technology, and all the featur
      • Does Oracle still require a 1.2+ gigabyte footprint? Yup, getting bigger all the time.

        Does Oracle still charge $40,000 per CPU for a perpetual Enterprise License?

        I think if someone bought Oracle just to power a web site, they deserved to be bitch slapped. MySQL is still for relatively small to mid-size deployments. Oracle would be like a Mercedes when MySQL is more like a 76 Beetle. The features of the Mercedes, along with the engine will probably be better built (More HP) and more (Safer during a c
      • Thank you for making these sensible points.
        I really think way too much time is spent on bagging other people's choices.

        Why would we want to give proprietary vendors ammo like "the open source world is divided"... why not spend time on promoting the various open source solutions in general, and presenting the diversity and choice that it offers as the good thing that it is?
        • Because some of us would rather people used MS SQL Server than MySQL. That's how much some of us hate it. It isn't a proprietary vs. open source thing. It's a complete RDBMS vs. incomplete RDBMS thing.

          And I'm not even talking about stored procedures. This [kuro5hin.org] is what I mean.

          When MySQL starts getting strict, I will stop using it as my whipping boy and start -- as you say -- promoting it as one of the various open source solutions in general.

    • Well, if it's a "Bash on the silly thoughts of the MySQL developers" thread, allow me to join in!

      Does MySQL still silently ignore DDL constructs that it doesn't handle (CHECK, FOREIGN KEY)?

      Does MySQL still refuse to allow the drivers to return metadata about foreign keys which are maintained by an underlying storage engine (n.b. FOREIGN KEY in InnoDB: the storage system knows about them, but the JDBC driver can't return metadata about them)? (Of course it does! After all, you don't want to use foreig

  • MySQL default installation (Score:3, Informative)

    by zaqattack911 ( 532040 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:40PM (#10638869) Journal
    Does mysql still by default install and run "network enabled" with default admin passwords set?

    Someone at work tried it once and they got hacked in one day :)

    Love ,
    Zaq
    • will give you a mysql installation with "skip-networking" in my.cnf. In other words, no one is going to hack you remotely without your explicitly enabling networking.

      I'm not sure what the other distros do. I do remember that the mysql install doc tells you to change your root password.

      Or maybe your "coworker" did not read the docs?

  • Start the countdown! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ttfkam ( 37064 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:48PM (#10638903) Homepage Journal
    Now that MySQL users now talk about how much they enjoy their subselects, a feature which only a couple of years ago was being derided as just extra bloat, how long until 5.0 goes stable?

    On that day, the hordes of MySQL developers will raise a chorus singing the praises of their new stored procedures, views and cursors. And behold! They didn't even slow down the product. Blessed be the MySQL programmers!

    Until that day however, stored procedures are "useless" and "needlessly complex." The same with views and cursors. They only serve to slow things down. Of course those pesky naysayers of MySQL will point out that those features have been in PostgreSQL and Firebird for years. But no! Our golden calf does not yet support them in production and until it does they are obviously useless bloat.

    Do you like it? I call this piece "Ode to a MySQL Fanboy."
    • > Until that day however, stored procedures are "useless" and "needlessly complex." The same with views and cursors.
      > [...]
      > Our golden calf does not yet support them in production and until it does they are obviously useless bloat.
      > Do you like it? I call this piece "Ode to a MySQL Fanboy."

      Years old joke recycled again, shame on you.
      And it's still scored funny. THAT is funny.

      But seriously, if you see any such statements in the present-day world, please do let me know, then we can do something
      • It's still scored funny because it's still true. If you are looking for any such comments, feel free to look in any discussion that includes database management systems. You'll see them. They're always there.
  • There are a few Databases I would look at for a client.

    Oracle...

    DB2...

    Now DB2 would be if they were already using DB2.

    Not that Oracle is better, or that I trust them, but in computing if there are 100,000 other customers using it, you cannot be sure it will stand up for your usage.

    So size does matter. [for databases, and male gentalia (sorry folks)]

    I am not a database admin. I personally like MySQL and use it for my own development. I hate getting confused between the oracle way and the mysql way.
  • ...and figure out which ones are being run most frequently with PQA [postgresql.org]. Works with PostgreSQL [postgresql.org], too!
  • The installer does not work 100% of the time. It took two tries to get it to install completely and then finally after that it didn't work with PHPMyAdmin (though obviously not the fault of MySQL), I gave up and went back to 4.0 (Note: I am a database admin, but the people that will use it afterwards are not, so they cannot use the command line).

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are unreported.

Close