Slashdot Mirror

I think the changes are pretty entertaining...

Use Access 2003 as your frontend to MySQL

Not.

MySQL has always been fast. That is probably why most people use it.

MySQL has also been easy to manage (e.g. move database files from one subdirectory to another and the tables have also moved). That kind of simplicity brings tears to the eyes of an Oracle admin. There are a few options you can tune and teak, but by and large it just works out of the box (er, RPMs).

And of course the reason it has been so popular is that it has been so popular. If you get my circular drift. People use it because there is a lot of documentation about it. Perl and PHP pretty much always have the MySQL libraries so it can be used on web sites, etc.

Speacking of those subqueries, what's up with the delay getting 4.1 out from alpha to beta/gamma/production. I want to start using it. And 4.1 has been out in alpha for over a year now. Not to mention new development is already proceeding with the 5.0 release.

- Run the latest and greatest alpha MySQL database on your own VPS

Not.

MySQL has always been fast. That is probably why most people use it.

MySQL has also been easy to manage (e.g. move database files from one subdirectory to another and the tables have also moved). That kind of simplicity brings tears to the eyes of an Oracle admin. There are a few options you can tune and teak, but by and large it just works out of the box (er, RPMs).

And of course the reason it has been so popular is that it has been so popular. If you get my circular drift. People use it because there is a lot of documentation about it. Perl and PHP pretty much always have the MySQL libraries so it can be used on web sites, etc.

Speacking of those subqueries, what's up with the delay getting 4.1 out from alpha to beta/gamma/production. I want to start using it. And 4.1 has been out in alpha for over a year now. Not to mention new development is already proceeding with the 5.0 release.

- Run the latest and greatest alpha MySQL database on your own VPS

Note that they've now posted a technical whitepaper outlining the architecture which wasn't there yesterday. It's worth a read, goes into a lot more detail than what was there previously and talks about replication options, failure scenarios, etc. It mentions that disk storage is used in addition to memory storage, which confirms the speculation made earlier in the discussion, though it still doesn't explain exactly how disk storage is used.

• The whitepaper
• FAQ
• Data sheet (it's a PDF)

• The whitepaper
• FAQ
• Data sheet (it's a PDF)

• The whitepaper
• FAQ
• Data sheet (it's a PDF)

I didn't post above, but I currently use both XP and 2000 daily. Make your own decisions but I also use OS X daily and it's far and away the most pleasant working environment I've encountered to date. That doesn't mean it's perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but that's not the point now, is it.

As for "OS 9," um, who's talking about OS 9?

If you want Unix, install Linux... FreeBSD... SuSE... Debian... Lycoris... Lindows... There are choices in the Windows world.

Well, by the time I've finished clicking through the (Continue) buttons in an OS X install I've managed to install both the entire GUI environment and the entire Unix OS. I can also install other Unix systems on Mac hardware, but frankly I've got everything I need right here.

I don't need to install anything else except Logic Pro 6, Ableton Live, MetaSynth, ArtMatic Pro, MetaTrack, Voyager, VTrack, Absynth, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, OmniDiskSweeper, Studiometry, FileMakerPro, Adobe Creative Suite, LaunchBar, MySQL, Perl 5.8.3, Fink, Plone, Keynote, BBEdit, FastTrack Schedule Pro, Sonasphere, Toast 6, ZBrush, and a few more but I'll get to those tomorrow.

I run all these (plus my email, internet, contacts management, calendaring, etc) in the same operating environment; not an emulation shell, not after dual-booting, but in the very same operating system and simultaneously.

To top it all off OS X comes with a full set of developer tools, documentation and optimization utilities, plus Cocoa+Obj-C is a match made in heaven.

There's no need to pay Apple for a decent Unix experience.

Well, I believe there is. I enjoy the ability to support quality whether it's a film, a restaurant, a music venue, a book, clothing, my neighborhood, an artist, etc. every single day.

The hardware is just a hunk of material until you've discovered/designed an interface with which to use it. Solely on a base consumer level, I'm very happy to pay Apple for what is, in daily practice, a superior computer operating system. From the level of both a technology consultant and a media creator, the solution is very simple.

OS X is a very impressive "Holy Grail" for all my current activities. Strap me in because I'm ready to get to work.

MySQL has autocommit enabled by default.
See here.

The official way to pronounce MySQL is ``My Ess Que Ell'' (not ``my sequel''), but we don't mind if you pronounce it as ``my sequel'' or in some other localized way.

MySQL was ruled out by the lead developers because of its lack of triggers and stored procedures. I'm sure it's very good for applications that are designed for it.

Did you see the planned development of version 5.0?

Let's not forget the security risks of running SQL Server, such as SQL Slammer.

MySQL was ruled out by the lead developers because of its lack of triggers and stored procedures.

I guess the lead developers didn't do their research.

You have multiple entries coming into the same table. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the database would lock that table upon a write request thus allowing only 1 write at a time? Wouldn't that keep things running more smoothly?

Or, was this a case of table locking causing a deadlock as all the other threads got stuck waiting for the table to unlock again?

Maybe they were using MySQL

3) Lack of roadmap

Lack of roadmap, huh. Tell that to mozilla or open office or MySQL or Gnome or perl or
Fedora I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Of course, I prefer a different term than "roadmap" -- vaporware.

--Mike--

How about Oracle asking for MySQL to remove their stats from the benchmark table

"Note that Oracle is not included because they asked to be removed. All Oracle benchmarks have to be passed by Oracle! We believe that makes Oracle benchmarks very biased because the above benchmarks are supposed to show what a standard installation can do for a single client."

How about Oracle asking for MySQL to remove their stats from the benchmark table

"Note that Oracle is not included because they asked to be removed. All Oracle benchmarks have to be passed by Oracle! We believe that makes Oracle benchmarks very biased because the above benchmarks are supposed to show what a standard installation can do for a single client."

MySQL Control Center is a step in that direction (client side) if they implement some more features on server side M$ centric customers need, it could get Microsoft into trouble in the future (some years)

MySQL Control Center is a step in that direction (client side) if they implement some more features on server side M$ centric customers need, it could get Microsoft into trouble in the future (some years)

zrm

Take a look at MySQL to see how something can be offered both commercially and under the GPL.

If you are the copyright holder for the entire code, you can license it however you please. The GPL does not remove the right of the copyright holder to do whatever they want with their own code

Whoa. MySQL is only good at "performance" under very simplistic use cases (single table selects, low insert/update load). Which describes a web board, but not that many real world applications.

So I guess you're saying MySQL AB customers should only be web boards and people who don't know better ??

Just for your enlightenment, This company runs entirely on MySQL, and no, they're not into web boards, they sell statistics :-)

Not only does MySQL AB do development, but also clients do as well since its product is available open source. For example, some additions forthcoming in version 5 have originated with the heavy weight Ericsson. That's a long cry from hobby developers, though there are some of those as well.

If you are truly that worried about support or can't / won't handle it in house, then buy a support contract.

MySQL is a far more certain payoff than MS-SQL Server. That and it runs on many, many platforms. So you can run it on whatever OS + hardware you have in the server room today and tomorrow.

Postgresql is another option. Likewise, so is Oracle. If you're going to be looking at the same price class as MS-SQL, then get the real thing and go with Oracle.

MySQL 5.0 is the 'Development tree.' It's not even alpha quality; 4.1 is currently the alpha release. (see www.mysql.com/downloads/index.html)

Postgres, by contrast, has had reliable support for transactions and triggers for six or seven years now.

Something that helps you craft medium-complicated joins quickly with a few clicks and drags.

Don't tell me there are developers or DBA's creating stored procedures in this fashion. This is something I expect from one of my lusers using Access. The code this creates is a nightmare.

However for most other things I like the GUI too. Which is why I downloaded these GUI tools for MySQL.

When it comes to databases, I certainly don't know what the fuck [I'm] talking about, but I bet the US Census Bureau knows a thing or two about databases. MySQL Press Release

Yep, I was shocked when I first played with MySql, having heard such good things about it, and discovered how many features it lacked that I consider essential to a serious database.

Have you seen versions 4.0, 4.1 or 5.0? True, 3.23 did lack many essential features.

I avoided MySQL until 4.0 and 4.1 came out. 3.23 really lacked many basic features that I consider necessary in a database.
PostgreSQL? I looked at the Postgres website and the project looks almost inactive. No one talks about Postgres in the business press.
MySQL has many new features behind it in 4.1 and 5.0. Plus, which I consider to be very important, it has incredible momentum behind it in both the developer community and the press.

I avoided MySQL until 4.0 and 4.1 came out. 3.23 really lacked many basic features that I consider necessary in a database.
PostgreSQL? I looked at the Postgres website and the project looks almost inactive. No one talks about Postgres in the business press.
MySQL has many new features behind it in 4.1 and 5.0. Plus, which I consider to be very important, it has incredible momentum behind it in both the developer community and the press.

I avoided MySQL until 4.0 and 4.1 came out. 3.23 really lacked many basic features that I consider necessary in a database.
PostgreSQL? I looked at the Postgres website and the project looks almost inactive. No one talks about Postgres in the business press.
MySQL has many new features behind it in 4.1 and 5.0. Plus, which I consider to be very important, it has incredible momentum behind it in both the developer community and the press.

Firebird
Postgresql
Maxdb

They all beat MS-SQL consistantly, and postgresql is coming close to toppling oracle!

Mysql isn't the only open source database in the world. It is popular because 90% of users DON'T need all the flashy features.

--Mike--

MySQL Control Center is a step in that direction (client side) if they implement some more features on server side M$ centric customers need, it could get Microsoft into trouble in the future (some years)

How about Oracle asking for MySQL to remove their stats from the benchmark table

"Note that Oracle is not included because they asked to be removed. All Oracle benchmarks have to be passed by Oracle! We believe that makes Oracle benchmarks very biased because the above benchmarks are supposed to show what a standard installation can do for a single client."

The moral of the story is clear: don't contribute to dual licensed projects, or any project where there is a clear single copyright owner. They have the ability to re-license at will, profiting from your work as you please and not having to offer in return what the original distribution license intended (e.g. GPL).

I know little about copyright law, but this seems wong to me. When you contribute code, you must have some expectation of how the code will be distributed.

The ownership of collaborative projects cannot be determined uniquely by the initial copyright owner. For example, I don't think Linus Torvalds has the right to release Linux under a non-GPL licence.

MySQL has always been available under more than one licence, so calling the GPL the 'original distribution license' is wrong. Contributors to MySQL must have known their work would be released commercially as well as under GPL, and contributed code with this belief.

So, the reason MySQL has the power to release code under a non-GPL licence without breaking faith with their contributors is because they have always reserved that right to themselves, have informed contributors of this fact all along, not because they are the 'original copyright holder'.

That said, you're quite right that if you believe strongly in the GPL as the one true licence, contributing to dual-licensed projects, especially ones in which the second licence is proprietary, might be setting yourself up for betrayal.

A better idea than not contributing at all is forking, redistributing only under the GPL, and contributing to the new forked project. Since the original project would still be GPL'ed, you could incorporate later revisions, while keeping your own changes, but all this work would probably get tedious after awhile unless you really believed in the goal (using the GPL exclusively).

MySQL AB claims that the server is released under GPL, but then they add a restriction on distribution that hardly is compatible with GPL, as can be seen on MySQL download page :

You need to purchase commercial non-GPL MySQL licenses:

* If you distribute MySQL Software with your non open source software,

FOSS license Exception. Scroll down for the table.

• Apple - Darwin and Safari
• IBM - Linux kernel
• Novell - Netware, NDS, eDirectory
• Trolltech - creators of Qt
• MySQL - major SQL database
• IndexData - networked information retreival
• RedHat
• Sleepycat - dbms
• Google

So if you want to know how to make money, look at the experts.

If not, and MySQL is your bottleneck, I'd be curious to know how it affects that when enabled.

.02

cLive ;-)

How long has it been since you looked at MySQL's features?

How about database clustering?

I'm not sure about that one - but it seems like either regular replication or 2-way replication oughtta get those needs taken care of. Or, read This article

Or remote replication?

Replication in MySQL is easy - I'm running a couple of replicas right now for backup purposes

Or security and access roles compatible with HIPPA regulations?

MySQL's access control can grant and deny access down to the column level. I assume that you mean HIPAA, though, and any access control problems introduced can be handled by the developer planning the database / managing access control, given MySQL's pretty granular control abilities. The job of managing HIPAA-compliant access control should be at the application level and not the database level, anyway.

Or reliable data recovery compatible with large-scale backup systems like Legato or TSM or Veritas?

MySQL uses files and directories that *any* backup system can use, even those that cost lots of money. Want a backup? Lock the table, dump the table, unlock the table. It's not hard. Read more about backing up MySQL. It doesn't get much more reliable than that.

I have a replicated, reliably backed up pair of mysql servers behind me. They're not HIPAA compliant, because that's a pain, but it'd be largely trivial to implement. Com back when you've researched your gripes.

How long has it been since you looked at MySQL's features?

How about database clustering?

I'm not sure about that one - but it seems like either regular replication or 2-way replication oughtta get those needs taken care of. Or, read This article

Or remote replication?

Replication in MySQL is easy - I'm running a couple of replicas right now for backup purposes

Or security and access roles compatible with HIPPA regulations?

MySQL's access control can grant and deny access down to the column level. I assume that you mean HIPAA, though, and any access control problems introduced can be handled by the developer planning the database / managing access control, given MySQL's pretty granular control abilities. The job of managing HIPAA-compliant access control should be at the application level and not the database level, anyway.

Or reliable data recovery compatible with large-scale backup systems like Legato or TSM or Veritas?

MySQL uses files and directories that *any* backup system can use, even those that cost lots of money. Want a backup? Lock the table, dump the table, unlock the table. It's not hard. Read more about backing up MySQL. It doesn't get much more reliable than that.

I have a replicated, reliably backed up pair of mysql servers behind me. They're not HIPAA compliant, because that's a pain, but it'd be largely trivial to implement. Com back when you've researched your gripes.

How long has it been since you looked at MySQL's features?

How about database clustering?

I'm not sure about that one - but it seems like either regular replication or 2-way replication oughtta get those needs taken care of. Or, read This article

Or remote replication?

Replication in MySQL is easy - I'm running a couple of replicas right now for backup purposes

Or security and access roles compatible with HIPPA regulations?

MySQL's access control can grant and deny access down to the column level. I assume that you mean HIPAA, though, and any access control problems introduced can be handled by the developer planning the database / managing access control, given MySQL's pretty granular control abilities. The job of managing HIPAA-compliant access control should be at the application level and not the database level, anyway.

Or reliable data recovery compatible with large-scale backup systems like Legato or TSM or Veritas?

MySQL uses files and directories that *any* backup system can use, even those that cost lots of money. Want a backup? Lock the table, dump the table, unlock the table. It's not hard. Read more about backing up MySQL. It doesn't get much more reliable than that.

I have a replicated, reliably backed up pair of mysql servers behind me. They're not HIPAA compliant, because that's a pain, but it'd be largely trivial to implement. Com back when you've researched your gripes.

At some point, your customer is likely to need or want commercial software (esp RDBMS), and they will find that Debian is simply not supported by any commercial software vendor.

What about MySQL, or do you not consider them to be "comercial" because their support offerings are optional and you can use their product for free if you choose to? MySQL offers comercial support to any and all who use their product, regardless of the platform you've installed it on (even Windows!), but of course you'll have to get your .debs from Debian, even if you do plan on using MySQLs support offerings..

Or you can use PostgreSQL on Debian and get your support from PostgreSQL Incorporated, but only if you're truly interested using using a reliable, and standards compliant database available (for raw performance, you'll want MySQL).

I understand your point, but it simply is not true that there is no commercial support for Debian (and that list is sorely incomplete). Yes, it is best if at least one person in your company take the time to become familiar enough with Debian to handle problems on their own, but that is true no-matter what OS you are using. If the consultant is most familiar with Debian, and Debian provides the capabilities needed by the client, then there is little reason not to use Debian.

one glaring ommission though is there is no way to manage the data, or structure of databases - you can see all the structure but can't actually do anything with it, and can't even run an SQL statement against it

Subqueries allow you to use the result of one query as a component of a larger query. The MySQL server already supports some forms of this technique, such as INSERT INTO ... SELECT ..., and this support will be expanded in version 4.1 to include nested SELECT queries, which is one of the most-requested features from our users.

I currently use mysqlcc and phpMyAdmin.

The main difference is in the server admin functionality not the actual data management.

For instance, when something seems a little slow I start watching the mysql process list using mysqlcc. I set it to refresh every 5 seconds (but I could set it lower). That is the kind of thing you can not do with phpMyAdmin (last time I checked).

-Jackson

So long as you don't modify MySQL, I BELIEVE you should be fine. Try checking the licence on MySQLs Website

DBM is a C library, so it's trivial to use from C and C++, and has API's for Java, Perl, Python, PHP and Tcl. It doesn't have a GUI, unless you consider an IDE a GUI :-). So you could write GTK/Qt code to talk to DBM, but it's not tied to any particular GUI. So it's not a drop-in replacement for Access -- it's 100x smaller and 100x faster (YMMV), but requires you to write code. The parallel with Access would be that it's an embedded filesystem-based database, as opposed to a stand-alone database server (a la SQL Server, MySQL, etc.).

"Hmm, does DBM allow you to run SQL queries against it?"

Nope, and they'd call that an advantage -- dbm is an extremely small and efficient C library -- making your app generate SQL, then pass the SQL to the database to parse out your meaning would just add complexity and slow things down. Of course, there are times when SQL is important, but for straightforward applications where efficiency is critical (i.e. when you need a database embedded in an application, not for use as a general database) dbm is a nice way to go.

If you want to use SQL, you can uselibmysqld. It's not as efficient as DBM, of course, but it does give you full SQL, which has a lot of value, too.

1. Obviously not everyone has Access. Many do, or have access to it via work or school (access to Access?!?)
2. There were certain things that were easier to implement in an HTML-based setting (conversely, there's things I still can't equal that were accomplished easily using VB & Active-X. Things such as a customized file browser with a built in image viewer)
3. While some of my VB code and Active-X'ing would have been transferable to the web, it would have required requiring that the user of my system use IE to administer it. Not gonna happen!
4. I just don't like Microsoft enough to make my product only available to users of their software. The above IE example would have required my admins to IE; Access would require users to have Access; Having Access implies that the user must also run Windows (Wine just isn't there for Access usage I'm afraid. At least not for very advanced usage)