Slashdot Mirror

See the MySQL documentation for triggers, views, and stored procedures, respectively. To answer your question, if you don't know what they are, you probably don't need them.

See the MySQL documentation for triggers, views, and stored procedures, respectively. To answer your question, if you don't know what they are, you probably don't need them.

> MySQL also has a large number of talented employees so it's possible
> they could develop their own transactional storage engine

They already have at least two others:

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/bdb-storage-engi ne.html (Not theirs, but it's there.)

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/ndbcluster.html (Yes, it's transaction-safe. MySQL just haven't been making a lot of noise about this aspect of Cluster. Perhaps for good reason, as it turns out.)

> Oracle's next task is probably to patent as many parts of the InnoDB
> code as possible.

How are they going to patent stuff that's been available under GPL for 10+ years?

> MySQL also has a large number of talented employees so it's possible
> they could develop their own transactional storage engine

They already have at least two others:

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/bdb-storage-engi ne.html (Not theirs, but it's there.)

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/ndbcluster.html (Yes, it's transaction-safe. MySQL just haven't been making a lot of noise about this aspect of Cluster. Perhaps for good reason, as it turns out.)

> Oracle's next task is probably to patent as many parts of the InnoDB
> code as possible.

How are they going to patent stuff that's been available under GPL for 10+ years?

If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion.

True, but you don't want to be the one who has to wank off the orang-utan either.

Come to think about it, in light of MySQL's recent partnership with SCO this may not be a bad analogy after all...

As for MySQL Administrator - I've been able to edit tables with primary keys without trouble - did one just now with version 1.1 as well. Perhaps you don't know how to update your applications just like you don't know how to update your client libs? Not sure what the problem is.

You based your whole rant around something which was blatantly untrue. How does that feel?

You would experience that in several row level locking engines, e.g. InnoDB and Oracle (thought I might be on thin ice here regarding Oracle)

InnoDB has the same behaviour:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/innodb-restricti ons.html
"InnoDB does not keep an internal count of rows in a table. (This would actually be somewhat complicated because of multi-versioning.) To process a SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t statement, InnoDB must scan an index of the table, which takes some time if the index is not entirely in the buffer pool."

Row level locking has a bunch of advantages, but in a bunch of web applications (where COUNT(*) seems to be used a lot) table level locking could result in quicker queries.

You can read more about different kinds of locking:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/table-locking.ht ml

You would experience that in several row level locking engines, e.g. InnoDB and Oracle (thought I might be on thin ice here regarding Oracle)

InnoDB has the same behaviour:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/innodb-restricti ons.html
"InnoDB does not keep an internal count of rows in a table. (This would actually be somewhat complicated because of multi-versioning.) To process a SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t statement, InnoDB must scan an index of the table, which takes some time if the index is not entirely in the buffer pool."

Row level locking has a bunch of advantages, but in a bunch of web applications (where COUNT(*) seems to be used a lot) table level locking could result in quicker queries.

You can read more about different kinds of locking:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/table-locking.ht ml

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/stored-procedure s.html

Let's see, according to their version 5.0.13 release candidate notes on stored procedures:
MySQL follows the SQL:2003 syntax for stored procedures, which is also used by IBM's DB2.

You may want to check the comparison chart
http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/features.html

The article profiles mission critical database software and discusses how well MySQL 5.0 fits the profile.

I love MySQL - I've built my technical solutions around it for the past 5 years. However, until it's released for PRODUCTION use you can't call it "MISSION-CRITICAL".

See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/choosing-version .html

Absolutely. Buzzilla uses MySQL on the server for its database. If you're using a Windows machine to access the data (you did mention Excel, so I guess that answers that), you'll need to install the MySQL ODBC driver, which is free. You can download that from http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/connector/odbc/3.51 .html. Once that's installed, create a new ODBC data source that points to the Bugzilla server.

I did this in order to point Access to the bugs database, in order to create some decent looking bug reports. We're still in the experimental phase of using Bugzilla at my company, but if I suggested that we rely on Bugzilla's built-in "reports," the project would've been shot down ages ago.

What was the last version you used? Have you conducted tests yourself or are you merely repeating fanboi retoric? I've used both views and subqueries with MySQL recently. stored procedures are listed for V5. Although most sites I've worked at ban them to keep their product flexible for moving between DB applications.

What was the last version you used? Have you conducted tests yourself or are you merely repeating fanboi retoric? I've used both views and subqueries with MySQL recently. stored procedures are listed for V5. Although most sites I've worked at ban them to keep their product flexible for moving between DB applications.

What was the last version you used? Have you conducted tests yourself or are you merely repeating fanboi retoric? I've used both views and subqueries with MySQL recently. stored procedures are listed for V5. Although most sites I've worked at ban them to keep their product flexible for moving between DB applications.

For those who often claim MySQL didn't do proper data validiation.

Please check this for MySQL 5.0+ Server SQL Mode.

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/server-sql-mode. html

>MySQL is around $500.

https://shop.mysql.com/ - MaxDB for non-SAP apps is US$1,490, MySQL Network Silver (working hours phone support) is US$1,995 and the cheapest one is US$595. And all of this is *per year*, folks.

The free version seems to be the only right-priced product they have.

If tables are stored in the InnoDB storage engine, mysqldump provides a way of making an online backup of these (see command below). This backup just needs to acquire a global read lock on all tables (using FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK) at the beginning of the dump. As soon as this lock has been acquired, the binary log coordinates are read and lock is released. So if and only if one long updating statement is running when the FLUSH... is issued, the MySQL server may get stalled until that long statement finishes, and then the dump becomes lock-free. So if the MySQL server receives only short (in the sense of "short execution time") updating statements, even if there are plenty of them, the initial lock period should not be noticeable.

shell> mysqldump --all-databases --single-transaction > all_databases.sql

Implementing ANSI SQL standard ways of using existing MySQL features means there will be fewer unpleasant surprises ("gotchas") for those migrating to MySQL from other database systems:
* Strict Mode: MySQL 5.0 adds a mode that complies with standard SQL in a number of areas in which earlier versions did not; we now do strict data type checking and issue errors for all invalid dates, numbers and strings as expected

Can we now finally retire that tiresome "MySQL gotchas" link? Please?

JP

That means that any application that you distribute that can access a MySQL database must be linked against the MySQL library, which is GPL, forcing your application to be GPL.

No it doesn't. The FLOSS License Exemption means that your application is not forced to be GPL if it uses any of 20 of the most popular free software licenses. The exempt licenses include the LGPL, the MIT and BSD licenses, the Mozilla license, the licenses for Perl, PHP, and Python... and the list goes on. In other words, the vast majority of free or open source software is able to link to the MySQL client library without being forced to change its license to the GPL.

This is a significant relaxation of the regular GPL terms. It even makes explicit allowances for users of the BSD license, the group that traditionally dislikes GPL software the most.

The only people who can complain about the MySQL licensing policy are freeloaders who want to benefit from free software without giving anything back to the developers or the community. You will, I trust, forgive me if I don't weep for such people.

A real database user that needed to hold a value of 300 would not use a column type that has a range of 0 to 255 or -127 to 127, since they would have read the page on choosing types. I guess *nix isn't a real operating system because it will let you destroy your system by doing things like "rm -rf / path/to/file"? You meant for that space to be there, right? :)

Anyway, from http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/numeric-types.ht ml, that will generate a warning if you do an update or a multi-row insert (why not in a single insert, I can't really justify):
When asked to store a value in a numeric column that is outside the column type's allowable range, MySQL clips the value to the appropriate endpoint of the range and stores the resulting value instead.
Conversions that occur due to clipping are reported as "warnings" for ALTER TABLE, LOAD DATA INFILE, UPDATE, and multiple-row INSERT statements.

BTW - Postgres isn't a real database, either, in the example of storing 32767+1 in a smallint:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/dat atype.html
Some of the operators and functions (e.g., addition and multiplication) do not perform run-time error-checking in the interests of improving execution speed. On some systems, for example, the numeric operators for some data types may silently cause underflow or overflow.

A real database user that needed to hold a value of 300 would not use a column type that has a range of 0 to 255 or -127 to 127, since they would have read the page on choosing types. I guess *nix isn't a real operating system because it will let you destroy your system by doing things like "rm -rf / path/to/file"? You meant for that space to be there, right? :)

Anyway, from http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/numeric-types.ht ml, that will generate a warning if you do an update or a multi-row insert (why not in a single insert, I can't really justify):
When asked to store a value in a numeric column that is outside the column type's allowable range, MySQL clips the value to the appropriate endpoint of the range and stores the resulting value instead.
Conversions that occur due to clipping are reported as "warnings" for ALTER TABLE, LOAD DATA INFILE, UPDATE, and multiple-row INSERT statements.

BTW - Postgres isn't a real database, either, in the example of storing 32767+1 in a smallint:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/dat atype.html
Some of the operators and functions (e.g., addition and multiplication) do not perform run-time error-checking in the interests of improving execution speed. On some systems, for example, the numeric operators for some data types may silently cause underflow or overflow.

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/server-sql-mode. html

SCO Partners With MySQL AB to Lower Costs and Increase the Power & Scalability of Modern Database Solutions

3 September 2005

Companies to Deliver Certified Version of MySQL for SCO OpenServer 6

LINDON, Utah, Sept. 2, 2005 -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database for SCO OpenServer 6, the newest release of SCO's UNIX solutions platform. As part of the agreement, the companies will work together on a range of joint marketing, sales, training, business development and support programs that will benefit customers throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. Additionally, SCO will include a trial subscription to the MySQL Network enterprise database service with each new copy of SCO OpenServer -- and offer full MySQL Network subscriptions through its reseller channel.

No true.

Those gotchas all (mostly) go away if you run MySQL 5.0 in strict mode. Compatibility mode is provided for 4.1 and back-asswards behaviour if you need it.

See: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/server-sql-mode. html

Martin

http://www.mysql.com/products/tools/

Weekly Prize (8 winners; 1 per week) This is your opportunity to win: * An Apple iPod nano To be eligible to win the Weekly Prize, you must: * File reproducible bugs at http://bugs.mysql.com/

Weekly Prize (8 winners; 1 per week) This is your opportunity to win: * An Apple iPod nano To be eligible to win the Weekly Prize, you must: * File reproducible bugs at http://bugs.mysql.com/

How do you want it to compare?

Source code quality is not easy to compare. At a first glance, MySQL is doing very good. They have this nice blurb about only having 1 defect in 4000 lines being more then 4 times better then with most commercial software. But if you dig deeper, you notice that PostgreSQL has been tested by the same company and only had 1 defect in every 39000 lines of code. Wow, so PostgreSQL must really be a lot better then MySQL.
But if you dig even deeper, you will find some explanation from a PostgreSQL developer and you remember what your mother told you about lies, damned lies and statistics.

You want to know about source code quality? Go read the source.

        * Under the Open Source License, you must release the complete source code for the application that is built on MySQL. You do not need to release the source code for components that are generally installed on the operating system on which your application runs, such as system header files or libraries.

        * Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long as you never distribute the MySQL Software in any way, you are free to use it for powering your application, irrespective of whether your application is under GPL license or not.

        * You are allowed to modify MySQL Software source code any way you like as long as the distributed derivative work is licensed under the GPL as well.

        * You are allowed to copy MySQL binaries and source code, but when you do so, the copies will fall under the GPL license.

        * Optional GPL License Exception for PHP. As a special exception, MySQL AB gives permission to distribute derivative works that are formed with GPL-licensed MySQL software and with software licensed under version 3.0 of the PHP license. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than code licensed under version 3.0 of the PHP license.

        * FLOSS License Exception. We have created a license exception which enables Free/Libre and Open Source software ("FLOSS") to be able to include the GPL-licensed MySQL client libraries despite the fact that not all open source licenses are compatible with the GPL (this includes the PHP license version 3.0). Read more about the FLOSS License Exception.

Considering the new license and still lacking features, there is little reason to use MySQL. Postgres has "all that anda bag of potato chips."

Linux is better of how?

Of course, it's pointless counting the different architectures (x86, x64, SPARC, S/390, etc) as there's a genuine need for different binaries there, even for one single platform.

There are several different options for relational databases, and despite what the slashdot community thinks, MySQL isn't necessarily the right one.

Let's first assume that you're devoted to the Oracle platform. Oracle has some nice advantages compared to some of the other RBDMS. It handles triggers very well, it supports a java based client for end user applications (programmed via PL/SQL), and it's damned fast (when it's setup up very well). Notably, you will need a dedicated Oracle server with pretty robust specs fi you want it to run well.

Now, a brief comparison of other products in case you are not devoted to Oracle.

Access is relatively cheap and easy to use if you're not going to be doing a lot concurrent operations on the DB.

MySQL is one of the most efficient databases I've worked with in terms of speed, assuming you've got a well normalized database. You can also run MySQL from a nondedicated machine for quite some time before you need a dedicated box (your results may vary). MySQL does have some limitations, though.

As best as I can tell, MS SQL Server runs pretty well, but seems like an oversized version of Access. This can be a good or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it. It does offer decent performance, an easy user interface, and it's a Microsoft product, which of course comes with positives and negatives.

There's also IBM's DB2 platform which (last I used it) had a fast db engine, and a horribly slow front end.

Wikipedia has a nice article that distinguishes between the different RDBMS out there. If you haven't yet picked a platform, I would suggest that you start there.

There are several things you can do, once you've picked a RDBMS, however, your best approach is to learn SQL. SQL is pretty standard amongst the DB engines, and if you can use it well, you'll be golden. This has been my favorite reference manual, although I must it admit if you're first learning SQL, the reading is quite dry. I would also recommend that you find a good resource for whichever database engine you end up using, because each of them has specific functions and keywords that you might need to look up from time to time.

Finally, one last question, if you don't mind me asking... If you've got a computer science background, why don't you have a good basic understanding of RDBMS? I mean, when it comes down to it they're all basically the same. Maybe I'm wrong, but it makes me wonder...

Consequentially, if you're boss is willing to hire me, I might just be looking for a job. :)

Just checking, your bosses know MySQL supports OpenGIS, right?

That article is about two years old. It is also wrong.

They're separate codebases and have separate developer teams.

MySQL 5.0 is considerably different from 4.1 - it adds views, stored procedures, triggers, cursors, a couple of new storage engines, and strict data handling (which going to piss some people off, but hey, you can't please everybody), and there are a number of syntax and other changes intended to make it comply with SQL:2003.

You will not find SAP/MaxDB code in the MySQL sources (or vice versa). It is extremely unlikely that you ever will, either.

MySQL MaxDB (formerly known as SAPDB) is comparable with Postgresql in terms of features. It suffers a similar lack of recognition with hosting companies and php developers. Ingres is another "enterprise" ready db that is available open source.

Who supports XA Transactions?
MySQL - Not yet (planned in 5.0.12?)
SAPDB/MAXDB - Yes (limitations?)
Postgresql - No - in the works (8.1/8.2?)
Firebird - Yes
Berkeley DB - Yes
Ingres - Yes (limitations?)

Pricing vs Proprietary
Oracle: $58K CDN per CPU + 10% maint
DB2: $55K CDN per CPU + 10% for maint
MS SQL Server: $3K CDN per year per server (enterprise edition)
MySQL MAX DB: $1,800 CDN per CPU + 10% maint
Postgresql: Free + Support
Ingres: Free + support

Does not support transactions.

It's true that MySQL does not have syntax for object-oriented queries. The object-relational model is significantly different from the relational model; there are a lot of applications where it's not needed.

I guess neither Postgres nor MySQL supports native storage of XML. However, it might not be too hard to implement. 6 years ago, neither database could store GIS data; today, they both can.

It's true that MySQL does not have syntax for object-oriented queries. The object-relational model is significantly different from the relational model; there are a lot of applications where it's not needed.

I guess neither Postgres nor MySQL supports native storage of XML. However, it might not be too hard to implement. 6 years ago, neither database could store GIS data; today, they both can.

It's true that MySQL does not have syntax for object-oriented queries. The object-relational model is significantly different from the relational model; there are a lot of applications where it's not needed.

I guess neither Postgres nor MySQL supports native storage of XML. However, it might not be too hard to implement. 6 years ago, neither database could store GIS data; today, they both can.

We haven't had any serious MySQL load problems in over a year, with the exception of one targeted DDoS which wedged up our search DB slave for a while. Slashdot hasn't had any MySQL reliability problems since we moved to 4.0. Our master DB has been running the same version of 4.0.x since early 2003 and it just keeps going, it never crashes. Later versions of 4.0.x are probably more reliable, but we have no need to upgrade because it just works. The only time it went down was last month when the OS finally threw a kernel panic, which sucked, but wasn't MySQL's fault.

Anyway, the point someone was trying to make is that MySQL isn't ready for high-traffic enterprise sites, which I hope we can all agree is just silly. Slashdot's not even the best example, go look at Wikipedia, CraigsList, LiveJournal, Yahoo, Google, etc.

Novell to Offer MySQL Network - 9 Aug 2005. From here:

"SAN FRANCISCO (LinuxWorld Conference & Expo) - Novell and MySQL AB today announced an agreement to deliver enhanced, combined support for key components of the popular open source LAMP infrastructure stack. Under the reseller and joint-support agreement, the only accord of its kind between a Linux* vendor and MySQL AB, Novell will now offer subscriptions to the MySQL Network commercial database service directly to its customers. As a result, customers can now deploy a true enterprise-class open source foundation for their IT infrastructure with confidence."

Of course MySQL AB must have made Novell aware of this before it happened, SCO vs Novell is fairly well known in the industry... Maybe MySQL AB are just getting ready for Novell's takeover of SCO? After all SCO owe Novell quite some money and maybe MySQL wants to be on the SCO "I owe you" list too. Investing in debts anyone, may that be done?

While it's true that MySQL 4 and 5 support "clustering" out of the box, it's actually a somewhat misleading statement. MySQL's clustering support is actually an entirely different database engine from MyISAM or InnoDB, much in the same way that MaxDB is. Cluster is actually something called NDB (Network DataBase), which Mysql AB acquired from a european telco (I think Vodaphone, but don't quote me on that) and is slowly integrating into the MySQL codebase.

NDB has some interesting design features, but it is not a plug-and-play HA solution for MySQL. It imposes some very serious limitations on queries and datatypes -- differences that basically make it a worst-case-scenario subset of the limitations of MyISAM and InnoDB. Additionally, running NDB requires running a number of specialized daemons that are administered in a substantially different fashion than the rest of mysqld, and which are, to put it charitably, a bit on the undocumented and flaky side.

Mysql AB appears to be working pretty hard to integrate NDB into their codebase, and I expect that in another 2 or 3 years it will be a very compelling solution. But for now, it's an interesting toy and nothing more.

BTW, here's New Features We Don't Plan to Implement:

We aim toward full compliance with ANSI/ISO SQL. There are no features we plan not to implement.

BTW, here's New Features We Don't Plan to Implement:

We aim toward full compliance with ANSI/ISO SQL. There are no features we plan not to implement.

SCO bought a freakin license to include a copy of MySQL that's not GPL. It's not like SCO bought the company.

"Given that 85 percent of SCO UNIX-based solutions are database applications, it makes complete sense to work more closely with MySQL to jointly certify, market and support our product solutions for the benefit of our mutual customers," said Jeff Hunsaker, senior vice president and general manager, SCO's UNIX division.

MySQL Administrator

MySQL Administrator is a powerful visual administration console that enables you to easily administer your MySQL environment and gain significantly better visibility into how your databases are operating. MySQL Administrator now integrates database management and maintenance into a single, seamless environment, with a clear and intuitive graphical user interface. By using MySQL Administrator you will be able to:

* Achieve higher database availability through improved management
* Reduce errors through visual database administration
* Lower database administration costs through improved productivity
* Deliver a more secure environment through easier privilege management

MySQL Administrator enables developers and DBAs to easily perform all the command line operations visually including configuring servers, administering users, and dynamically monitoring database health. Other common administrative tasks such as monitoring replication status, backup and restore, and viewing logs can also be performed through the MySQL Administrator graphical console.

The jokes on SCO, they paid to use something in a product very few companies will buy.
 
More precisely:
The joke's on SCO, they paid for something that very few companies have to pay for, to use in a product that very few companies will buy. Additionally, for those companies already own UnixWare or OpenUNIX, MySQL AB already provides installation instructions and patches for them. Finally, for the exceptionally lazy, SCO themselves provide a GPL'd version for you to download for free!
 
More on-topic, isn't this story a dupe? Granted I wouldn't expect these editors to search back 6 years to find it, but I would at least expect them not to be 6 releases behind on the PostgreSQL version number! Oh wait...

The jokes on SCO, they paid to use something in a product very few companies will buy.
 
More precisely:
The joke's on SCO, they paid for something that very few companies have to pay for, to use in a product that very few companies will buy. Additionally, for those companies already own UnixWare or OpenUNIX, MySQL AB already provides installation instructions and patches for them. Finally, for the exceptionally lazy, SCO themselves provide a GPL'd version for you to download for free!
 
More on-topic, isn't this story a dupe? Granted I wouldn't expect these editors to search back 6 years to find it, but I would at least expect them not to be 6 releases behind on the PostgreSQL version number! Oh wait...

More like debating Ford versus Mack.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/

http://www.macktrucks.com/

Oh, and you may want to go read MySQL-AB's partner news page to get a better understanding of what SCO "bought".

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html

burnin