Slashdot Mirror

MS Access has the advantage (on Windows machines anyway) of being a stand-alone database without needing a service to be installed. For a app where you don't want to have to install MySQL server and have it waste resources, you might consider SQLite. Unlike MySQL embedded, it's release under the public domain. MySQL Embedded is licensed under the GPL and has the following requirement:

... any program which includes, by linking with libmysqld, the MySQL source code must be released as free software (under a license compatible with the GPL).

Although, depending on what you want to do with the software, this may not be a problem. I'm all for free and open source software, but a brother's gotta eat too.

In any english writing class they teach you:
Make a statement, then back that statement up. The previous poster was showing that sometimes there is a reason you need more education to implement a database well.

I suggest MySQL Administrator when it is completed. Or he could just use MS Access. It teaches you everything the wrong way but you can create a functional piece of shit with it.

For a straight-up GUI, he might try MySQL Control Center. It's a Qt-based app, so it'll run on Linux and Windows. It lets you build and run queries, manage the server, etc. Even has a "viewer" for images stored as BLOBs.

There's phpMyAdmin as another option. It's web-based, so the "GUI" should run on anything. It does the same kind of stuff that MySQLCC does: lay out tables, create fields, run queries, etc.

On the admin side of things, the upcoming MySQL Administrator looks like it should be very nice. It lets you drop users, tune the DB, monitor the server, etc.

No matter what he winds up using for a GUI, if he uses MySQL, I couldn't recommend the MySQL Cookbook highly enough. It's an amazingly well-written book and very helpful. Every time I find myself with a "what's the best way to do so-and-so..." question, the answer is never more than 30 seconds of page turning away. It's also good for beginners because it's an easy way to find out how to do particular tasks without having to read an entire manual. It'll let a novice user figure out what query to type into MySQLCC, in other words. And the novice user might eventually find out that all the "database theory stuff" isn't all that difficult to learn.

That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure some googling or trolling through freshmeat will yield some GUI apps for PostgreSQL if that's what he's into using.

-B

For a straight-up GUI, he might try MySQL Control Center. It's a Qt-based app, so it'll run on Linux and Windows. It lets you build and run queries, manage the server, etc. Even has a "viewer" for images stored as BLOBs.

There's phpMyAdmin as another option. It's web-based, so the "GUI" should run on anything. It does the same kind of stuff that MySQLCC does: lay out tables, create fields, run queries, etc.

On the admin side of things, the upcoming MySQL Administrator looks like it should be very nice. It lets you drop users, tune the DB, monitor the server, etc.

No matter what he winds up using for a GUI, if he uses MySQL, I couldn't recommend the MySQL Cookbook highly enough. It's an amazingly well-written book and very helpful. Every time I find myself with a "what's the best way to do so-and-so..." question, the answer is never more than 30 seconds of page turning away. It's also good for beginners because it's an easy way to find out how to do particular tasks without having to read an entire manual. It'll let a novice user figure out what query to type into MySQLCC, in other words. And the novice user might eventually find out that all the "database theory stuff" isn't all that difficult to learn.

That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure some googling or trolling through freshmeat will yield some GUI apps for PostgreSQL if that's what he's into using.

-B

Also, why does everyone ignore Firebird (the database)?

Firebird was born when Borland open-sourced their database product. I worked at Borland for a number of years. You would think I would be its biggest advocate, rather than giving quotes to promote a non-ACID competitor. But let me tell you why I, and possibly other people, haven't embraced Firebird-the-database. First, having worked at Borland, I saw some of its problems up close & personal. We tried to move borland.com to a database-backed site at one point, and our own product couldn't keep up with the load. Of course, this was 1998, so it's old news. Someone at the company, whose name I wish I could remember, eventually built a smart little system that would pre-generate every possible combination of db-built pages, and pre-load our server with hundreds of thousands of static HTML files. This worked, as the database never took any direct hits, and only had to rebuild the pages at midnight each night. However, since I had just come off a bad experience with IntraBuilder (now cancelled, partly thanks to me & Chris Malatesta trying to use it on borland.com, and watching it crash & burn), I was really wary, and felt that the database was a big compromise.

In addition, the database at the time had a number of bad limitations. One was that, even after deleting records, the database size would grow. We had a customer that wanted to create and delete about a million records a day, but after a month, the database size looked like it housed 30 million records, not 1 million. I initially just assumed that the indexes were not properly maintained, but since Borland eventually lost the customer, I assume a simple regen of the indexes didn't fix it. And of course, as most of us know, after the database was open-sourced, a pretty severe exploit was found, and it existed in all or nearly all versions, including the proprietary ones. That the open-source guys found the exploit and repaired it is a testament to OSS. And as further testament, I just assume that they've tightened up the code now to the point that every previous complaint or concern I've had is moot.

So what's the problem? Well, in the last 6 years, I've left Borland, and found better databases (IMHO) in MySQL and PostgreSQL. MySQL had a reputation for being very basic, but very fast without a lot of tuning, and very easy, and very reliable. PostgreSQL had a reputation for being (nearly) as feature-complete as Oracle. Over the last few years, I've simply defaulted to them -- they're what I know, they're what I use, they work, and I've not had a reason to look elsewhere. And I think that's Firebird's problem: the bulk of Web people have already been in the business for a while, and already grown accustomed to other databases. It's inertia.

To solve this, one of the only things I can think of would be an anti-MySQL campaign, where you clearly outlined MySQL's silent error problem. It's the only problem I've had with MySQL -- this scenario where it doesn't process the request properly, and silently discards it or picks some (never quite right) defaults. I'm currently getting this with some date fields, where it helpfully inserts an unexpected 0000-00-00 date. If someone documented all those issues, and explained them simply, and showed better alternatives, it might open up people's minds. Of course, in my case, I'm enough of a MySQL fan that I'd rather just wait for Monty & others to improve their product. But I'm sure some people could be encouraged to reconsider their loyalties. And until they do, Firebird could be better but still have no mindshare.

Stored Procedures in MySQL 5

What is MySQL's software licensing model?

MySQL uses a "dual licensing" business model. Under this model, users may choose to use MySQL products under the free software/open source GNU General Public License (commonly known as the "GPL") or under a commercial license...

What is MySQL's software licensing model?

MySQL uses a "dual licensing" business model. Under this model, users may choose to use MySQL products under the free software/open source GNU General Public License (commonly known as the "GPL") or under a commercial license...

For an 8-page list of MySQL administrators, check out MySQL's list.

I've been using MySQL Command Center for a year and it works well. I don't like DHTML in phpMyAdmin. MySQL CC is quick and relatively well-designed, although the new MySQL Administrator screenshots look great.

"No use"? The purpose of a vaporware announcement is to generate buzz. You sound pretty buzzful to me.

You sound like developers set out to create vaporware. Vaporware generally happens when a management group mis-represents the product as being ready or feasable when it is neither. This is less likely in OSS...

Why else no Linux screenshots? If they had them, they'd certainly show them, given the Linux bias of the typical MySQL user.

Gee, I don't know...maybe because that's their primary audience for this product...most Linux administrators use Windoze workstations and this most certainly is a workstation app...much like the MySQL Control Center...as a matter of fact, all of the Screenshots for the Control Center are from Windoze...yet it most certainly exists.

Not to mention the fact that there are quotes in the product page from people that have obviously seen some sort of Alpha release. There's obviously a real reason for them not releasing the current product...it probably has to do with the fact that they don't want anyone to screw up their database...

The real question here is what has MySQL AB done to make you doubt the authenticity of a product???

In case you hadn't noticed MySQL AB is a business, not a charity. Just because they don't sell software doesn't mean they have no incentive to generate buzz.

From the same link (look at "platforms"), it looks like Mac OS X has been lumped under the general term "Linux", so don't count it out yet... :)

From the page in the article, it seems that this is more of an Administrative tool and not a general database design tool (like MySQLFront or Control Center)...just look at the screen shots...

User Administration
Health Monitor
Startup Parameters
Backup/Restore

These look more like an administrative command line alternative. Which would mean it's providing a tool that has not been offered in another MySQL compatible app...

This is actually a feature offered by some advanced commercial databases...it's obviously just a sign that MySQL is coming into its own...

From the page in the article, it seems that this is more of an Administrative tool and not a general database design tool (like MySQLFront or Control Center)...just look at the screen shots...

User Administration
Health Monitor
Startup Parameters
Backup/Restore

These look more like an administrative command line alternative. Which would mean it's providing a tool that has not been offered in another MySQL compatible app...

This is actually a feature offered by some advanced commercial databases...it's obviously just a sign that MySQL is coming into its own...

From the page in the article, it seems that this is more of an Administrative tool and not a general database design tool (like MySQLFront or Control Center)...just look at the screen shots...

User Administration
Health Monitor
Startup Parameters
Backup/Restore

These look more like an administrative command line alternative. Which would mean it's providing a tool that has not been offered in another MySQL compatible app...

This is actually a feature offered by some advanced commercial databases...it's obviously just a sign that MySQL is coming into its own...

From the page in the article, it seems that this is more of an Administrative tool and not a general database design tool (like MySQLFront or Control Center)...just look at the screen shots...

User Administration
Health Monitor
Startup Parameters
Backup/Restore

These look more like an administrative command line alternative. Which would mean it's providing a tool that has not been offered in another MySQL compatible app...

This is actually a feature offered by some advanced commercial databases...it's obviously just a sign that MySQL is coming into its own...

Not clear from the pagewhether this is a free tool or what the licensing is -- has anybody heard?

Ok, just checkout MySQL's web page it is freely downloadable as well a the source. Making MySQL run under cygwin is a WASTE of time.

Anyone recall the MySQL vs. NuSphere case? A few reminders:

GPL enforcement goes to court for first time in MySQL case
Affidavit of Eben Moglen on Progress Software vs. MySQL AB Preliminary Injunction Hearing
FAQ on MySQL vs. NuSphere Dispute

This was over 2-3 years ago. But again, the GPL itself, will not be "tested" in court, because violations and violators are easy to find, and prove. Once you violate the GPL, everything else above and beyond that, are U.S. Copyright violations (and in some cases, Lanham Act violations).

Most companies settle out of court, because the cost of public embarrassment would be much more damaging to them. I personally know, because I've got 4 active GPL investigations of my own going on three projects I actively contribute to (and one I am the primary maintainer of), and one company backed WAY down, once they realized the huge financial and public penalty for not complying with our license.

No company wants to take the GPL to court, mostly because if it gets that far, the developers/FSF/community have already done their homework, and can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, a violation. Penalties range from $30k/USD to $150k/USD per violation once the GPL itself is violated and rights to continue using it are stripped. For a site that provides "free downloads" of a product that might contain violating code, that can get quite expensive.

And what info do you have about the recent license change? Perhaps you mean this but the mysql license page says its GPL with PHP exceptions.

You post was sparse its hard to tell if these were the rumours you were talking about.

From the press release (I got to it before it was /.ed)

I couldn't find anything concerning Stored Procedures in SQL:2003 via google but from their own site, it looks like it is what is common to both PL/SQL and T-SQL. No embedded VM here.

MSDE is a scabby, pus-ridden sore on the backside of the Internet. If you are glad that it exists for the MS platform, then you are two steps below stupid.

Look at the MySQL website, and learn how to use a real, reliable database.

Actually, I was trying to wrap up a seemingly endless thread in a slightly humorous way. But since you insist on keeping this thing alive in a way that is clearly inflammatory, let's take a closer look at this "loser" of a database called MySQL.

It's in heavy use on millions of installations around the world. NEC is using MySQL to power its Global Navigator Management Information System. For the sixth year running, the readers of Linux Journal voted MySQL "best database". Sabre uses MySQL to power its Air Shopping products, mission-critical enterprise services that "conduct online travel searches for Sabre Holdings customers such as Travelocity, airlines and travel agents worldwide.". Slashdot uses MySQL. Yahoo!'s Jeremy Zawodney seems to think that MySQL rocks. Yes, all these links are dredged up from the MySQL AB site. No, it's not propaganda - it's real companies, using MySQL to do real work. Simple as that. Sorry if this interferes with anybody's purist views on just how a database should be - I am not denying that MySQL has its share of bugs and design flaws, but my original point (and one that seems totally lost on the religious fundamentalists) is that the story is not that black and white. MySQL works very, very well as a real database, in many, many applications. No doubt PostgreSQL does too. Hopefully both will get better... but I am truly sick and tired of these people dragging out the same old list of "gotchas" for MySQL (which you could, let's face it, build for *any* product if you were just plain obsessive enough about it - which is apparently the case for the anti-MySQL database fundamentalists).

I think the main problem I have is that while the fundamentalists can point to a list of bugs and gotchas, all I can point to is a feature list that just keeps getting better (transactions, subselects and all the rest is now in there), and a set of very successful, large, competent companies, and millions of other installations that work reliably all day, every day. It's not as dramatic to say "it works" as it is to point up problems. MySQL is clearly being actively developed, and no matter what people say about "problems" with error codes (issues which I have never experienced myself, in four years of heavy, daily use) - no matter what the fundamentalists rant about, it's clear that MySQL works extremely well. Go tell Yahoo!, NEC, Sabre, Slashdot, and all the millions of other users that it's "not a real database". Go tell them that they are ignorant and clueless about what a database should be. Whatever.

Meantime, why not try getting a life.

Actually, I was trying to wrap up a seemingly endless thread in a slightly humorous way. But since you insist on keeping this thing alive in a way that is clearly inflammatory, let's take a closer look at this "loser" of a database called MySQL.

It's in heavy use on millions of installations around the world. NEC is using MySQL to power its Global Navigator Management Information System. For the sixth year running, the readers of Linux Journal voted MySQL "best database". Sabre uses MySQL to power its Air Shopping products, mission-critical enterprise services that "conduct online travel searches for Sabre Holdings customers such as Travelocity, airlines and travel agents worldwide.". Slashdot uses MySQL. Yahoo!'s Jeremy Zawodney seems to think that MySQL rocks. Yes, all these links are dredged up from the MySQL AB site. No, it's not propaganda - it's real companies, using MySQL to do real work. Simple as that. Sorry if this interferes with anybody's purist views on just how a database should be - I am not denying that MySQL has its share of bugs and design flaws, but my original point (and one that seems totally lost on the religious fundamentalists) is that the story is not that black and white. MySQL works very, very well as a real database, in many, many applications. No doubt PostgreSQL does too. Hopefully both will get better... but I am truly sick and tired of these people dragging out the same old list of "gotchas" for MySQL (which you could, let's face it, build for *any* product if you were just plain obsessive enough about it - which is apparently the case for the anti-MySQL database fundamentalists).

I think the main problem I have is that while the fundamentalists can point to a list of bugs and gotchas, all I can point to is a feature list that just keeps getting better (transactions, subselects and all the rest is now in there), and a set of very successful, large, competent companies, and millions of other installations that work reliably all day, every day. It's not as dramatic to say "it works" as it is to point up problems. MySQL is clearly being actively developed, and no matter what people say about "problems" with error codes (issues which I have never experienced myself, in four years of heavy, daily use) - no matter what the fundamentalists rant about, it's clear that MySQL works extremely well. Go tell Yahoo!, NEC, Sabre, Slashdot, and all the millions of other users that it's "not a real database". Go tell them that they are ignorant and clueless about what a database should be. Whatever.

Meantime, why not try getting a life.

Actually, I was trying to wrap up a seemingly endless thread in a slightly humorous way. But since you insist on keeping this thing alive in a way that is clearly inflammatory, let's take a closer look at this "loser" of a database called MySQL.

It's in heavy use on millions of installations around the world. NEC is using MySQL to power its Global Navigator Management Information System. For the sixth year running, the readers of Linux Journal voted MySQL "best database". Sabre uses MySQL to power its Air Shopping products, mission-critical enterprise services that "conduct online travel searches for Sabre Holdings customers such as Travelocity, airlines and travel agents worldwide.". Slashdot uses MySQL. Yahoo!'s Jeremy Zawodney seems to think that MySQL rocks. Yes, all these links are dredged up from the MySQL AB site. No, it's not propaganda - it's real companies, using MySQL to do real work. Simple as that. Sorry if this interferes with anybody's purist views on just how a database should be - I am not denying that MySQL has its share of bugs and design flaws, but my original point (and one that seems totally lost on the religious fundamentalists) is that the story is not that black and white. MySQL works very, very well as a real database, in many, many applications. No doubt PostgreSQL does too. Hopefully both will get better... but I am truly sick and tired of these people dragging out the same old list of "gotchas" for MySQL (which you could, let's face it, build for *any* product if you were just plain obsessive enough about it - which is apparently the case for the anti-MySQL database fundamentalists).

I think the main problem I have is that while the fundamentalists can point to a list of bugs and gotchas, all I can point to is a feature list that just keeps getting better (transactions, subselects and all the rest is now in there), and a set of very successful, large, competent companies, and millions of other installations that work reliably all day, every day. It's not as dramatic to say "it works" as it is to point up problems. MySQL is clearly being actively developed, and no matter what people say about "problems" with error codes (issues which I have never experienced myself, in four years of heavy, daily use) - no matter what the fundamentalists rant about, it's clear that MySQL works extremely well. Go tell Yahoo!, NEC, Sabre, Slashdot, and all the millions of other users that it's "not a real database". Go tell them that they are ignorant and clueless about what a database should be. Whatever.

Meantime, why not try getting a life.

Actually, I was trying to wrap up a seemingly endless thread in a slightly humorous way. But since you insist on keeping this thing alive in a way that is clearly inflammatory, let's take a closer look at this "loser" of a database called MySQL.

It's in heavy use on millions of installations around the world. NEC is using MySQL to power its Global Navigator Management Information System. For the sixth year running, the readers of Linux Journal voted MySQL "best database". Sabre uses MySQL to power its Air Shopping products, mission-critical enterprise services that "conduct online travel searches for Sabre Holdings customers such as Travelocity, airlines and travel agents worldwide.". Slashdot uses MySQL. Yahoo!'s Jeremy Zawodney seems to think that MySQL rocks. Yes, all these links are dredged up from the MySQL AB site. No, it's not propaganda - it's real companies, using MySQL to do real work. Simple as that. Sorry if this interferes with anybody's purist views on just how a database should be - I am not denying that MySQL has its share of bugs and design flaws, but my original point (and one that seems totally lost on the religious fundamentalists) is that the story is not that black and white. MySQL works very, very well as a real database, in many, many applications. No doubt PostgreSQL does too. Hopefully both will get better... but I am truly sick and tired of these people dragging out the same old list of "gotchas" for MySQL (which you could, let's face it, build for *any* product if you were just plain obsessive enough about it - which is apparently the case for the anti-MySQL database fundamentalists).

I think the main problem I have is that while the fundamentalists can point to a list of bugs and gotchas, all I can point to is a feature list that just keeps getting better (transactions, subselects and all the rest is now in there), and a set of very successful, large, competent companies, and millions of other installations that work reliably all day, every day. It's not as dramatic to say "it works" as it is to point up problems. MySQL is clearly being actively developed, and no matter what people say about "problems" with error codes (issues which I have never experienced myself, in four years of heavy, daily use) - no matter what the fundamentalists rant about, it's clear that MySQL works extremely well. Go tell Yahoo!, NEC, Sabre, Slashdot, and all the millions of other users that it's "not a real database". Go tell them that they are ignorant and clueless about what a database should be. Whatever.

Meantime, why not try getting a life.

MySQL AB have not eschewed compliance with the SQL standards, as you can see for yourself from their documentation. To quote: "We aim toward full compliance with SQL-92/SQL-99; there are no features we plan not to implement."

Your first line, regarding "mythical" PostgreSQL advocates, is really laughable. You must be blind not to see them every time MySQL gets mentioned (even when the subject has nothing whatsoever to do with PostgreSQL)... now, I don't mind people comparing features and saying that they prefer PostgreSQL because it has x and y and z and MySQL doesn't. However, there is a line here in terms of being obnoxious and insulting, and this is what I object to. People who say that MySQL is not a real database, or that it's just a toy, or that it can't be trusted with anything - this is just wrong. Sorry. Wrong wrong wrong. MySQL may not have all the advanced features of PostgreSQL, but that doesn't mean it's a heap of steaming feces! That's just too extreme.

I know that a lot of the stuff that has been said on *both* sides of the debate has been controversial, and honestly I don't know enough about the details to know who started it or even who's right or wrong about the details. All I know is that we have two Open Source databases, and I've been using one of them for a number of years now, without any problems, to take care of reasonably complex databases - and so I *do* have direct experience of MySQL. It works very well. If you don't like it because of certain features lacking, that's fine - you're perfectly free to dislike it. But I wanted to counter the people who put it down in a way that I simply find objectionable. It doesn't mean that I buy into any of the previous baggage floating around regarding what's been said in the past, but if the only reason people are saying such things is because of perceived injustices of the past, then they should be open about it - otherwise they are being disingenuous, dishonest and falling victim to the same unjust behaviour that they are claiming to be so sore about themselves. Saying "MySQL is a toy" or "MySQL is just an SQL interface to a flat file system" is a different kind of criticism to "MySQL AB has spread untruths about PostgreSQL in the past".

Incidentally, why should it be a "disservice" to the database community to "dumb down" a database? Should databases remain the pure hallowed domain of database wizards who understand normalization and relational theory? Why shouldn't developers have access to a tool which performs well and does the job that is required for many, many cases? MySQL AB haven't "created a mindset" based purely on speed, they just made a product that was extremely easy to use (for developers, not end users) and it "just works". So then they realized that people wanted more stuff like transactions and subqueries *sometimes*, so they put that in... I don't see anything wrong with this incremental approach. MySQL 4 involved substantial code changes, I think, so they are obviously not afraid of redeveloping when it makes sense for new features. This is true for any project.

You may find the features you list essential, but realize that other people do not. Doesn't mean they are uneducated yokels, just that they don't need it. They can learn about this stuff and get into using databases without immediately running into all the complexity that is included with the more advanced packages. Later, if they find they need something that is not included, then they can move over to use something else like PostgreSQL - but people aren't really doing this in reality, because MySQL is "good enough" for most things. It's not perfect, but it certainly does the job and is being used by lots of people around the world. This may grate, but it's important to realize that this popularity is not due to people being led like sheep - it's because MySQL *works* and it works rather well.

DataDino - I'm using a data model compiler I developed so I don't write as much SQL anymore. When I do, it's either through the command line mysql client, the C++/Qt MySQLCC editor from MySQL (looks a lot like DataDino) or my own custom reporting app.

JGoodies - 5 years ago I used a VB app a buddy wrote for this ;o) Now, the command line tool du does a great job.

Azureas - This probably wouldn't be a bad Java app as you start it up and then leave it running. Ignoring RAM consumption, it probably performs pretty well. Too bad I don't use BitTorrent...

JBoss - Not a java web developer. Mostly custom client side apps written in Qt. Again, this one probably isn't affected by startup times as it probably runs as a daemon.

Think Free - lol, that's the only link I didn't click on and glance at before I replied earlier :) Pretty much anything has got to start faster than OO and that's what I'm suffering with right now. Just crossing my fingers that KOffice will catch up. Guess I should try out Think Free as well.

Wurm Online - Ok, pretty sure I hate you now. Just what I need... Another pretty cool looking game I can play ;o) And as long as it starts up in under 5 minutes, I could care less.

Here you go, foreign keys. Works OK in my opinion, been using them for a while now.

And the SQL server trolls as well

The response to this post (if there are any) will go like this: A bulleted list of general gripes with nothing to back them up.

Nope. A bulleted list of links:

• No real (ANSI) stored procedures and triggers
• No reliable replication and backup
• No online consistent backup: the best they have to propose is to backup the files! Gawd!
• No real (ANSI) subselects
• No triggers
• Loads of messy incompatibilities with ANSI standards
• ... and I could go on and on ...

And the SQL server trolls as well

The response to this post (if there are any) will go like this: A bulleted list of general gripes with nothing to back them up.

Nope. A bulleted list of links:

• No real (ANSI) stored procedures and triggers
• No reliable replication and backup
• No online consistent backup: the best they have to propose is to backup the files! Gawd!
• No real (ANSI) subselects
• No triggers
• Loads of messy incompatibilities with ANSI standards
• ... and I could go on and on ...

And the SQL server trolls as well

The response to this post (if there are any) will go like this: A bulleted list of general gripes with nothing to back them up.

Nope. A bulleted list of links:

• No real (ANSI) stored procedures and triggers
• No reliable replication and backup
• No online consistent backup: the best they have to propose is to backup the files! Gawd!
• No real (ANSI) subselects
• No triggers
• Loads of messy incompatibilities with ANSI standards
• ... and I could go on and on ...

And the SQL server trolls as well

The response to this post (if there are any) will go like this: A bulleted list of general gripes with nothing to back them up.

Nope. A bulleted list of links:

• No real (ANSI) stored procedures and triggers
• No reliable replication and backup
• No online consistent backup: the best they have to propose is to backup the files! Gawd!
• No real (ANSI) subselects
• No triggers
• Loads of messy incompatibilities with ANSI standards
• ... and I could go on and on ...

And the SQL server trolls as well

The response to this post (if there are any) will go like this: A bulleted list of general gripes with nothing to back them up.

Nope. A bulleted list of links:

• No real (ANSI) stored procedures and triggers
• No reliable replication and backup
• No online consistent backup: the best they have to propose is to backup the files! Gawd!
• No real (ANSI) subselects
• No triggers
• Loads of messy incompatibilities with ANSI standards
• ... and I could go on and on ...

Keep on waiting. These are not real subqueries. Stuff such as SELECT name FROM TABLE_1 WHERE id IN (SELECT eligible FROM TABLE_2) still does not work.

Or, if you don't want to wait, use a professional commercial database

The stored procedures are not real either, just check this link on MySQL's own site!

InnoDB Hot Backup is a non-free additional tool

wrong! (if you have a version more recent than 3.23.43b). Other constraints than FOREIGN KEY followed, or will follow shortly.

In general, constraints work best with the INNODB (new) table format than with ISAM (old format). This is because proper constraint handling depends on availability of rollback

Stored procedures are being implemented in our version 5.0 development tree.

They were talking about a particular type of stored procedures here (PL/SQL). However, you can write stored procedures in other languages, such as Java and also Perl, as has been described December's Linux Journal on page 84.

Online backup? Nope

Wrong. If you use INNODB tables, you can do an online backup (without disturbing current operations, and without setting any intrusive locks). Yes, it is a commercial tool, but we can hardly object to this, we are comparing to databases where the whole software is commercial!

reading a bogus whitepaper.

What do you mean by this. If you hit google, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of links agree that MySQL is superior to Microsoft's offering.

wrong! (if you have a version more recent than 3.23.43b). Other constraints than FOREIGN KEY followed, or will follow shortly.

In general, constraints work best with the INNODB (new) table format than with ISAM (old format). This is because proper constraint handling depends on availability of rollback

Stored procedures are being implemented in our version 5.0 development tree.

They were talking about a particular type of stored procedures here (PL/SQL). However, you can write stored procedures in other languages, such as Java and also Perl, as has been described December's Linux Journal on page 84.

Online backup? Nope

Wrong. If you use INNODB tables, you can do an online backup (without disturbing current operations, and without setting any intrusive locks). Yes, it is a commercial tool, but we can hardly object to this, we are comparing to databases where the whole software is commercial!

reading a bogus whitepaper.

What do you mean by this. If you hit google, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of links agree that MySQL is superior to Microsoft's offering.

Most of your points on MySQL are out of date. Its featureset has progressed a great deal since, apparently, you last looked into it. Even way back when this was a hot topic (when PostgreSQL, another excellent open source DB, was an up-and-comer), MySQL developers were already saying that most of people's concerns were being addressed in upcoming releasesd... Those releases have since come and gone (mostly in the form of 4.0, though IMHO, 4.1 is MySQL's finest moment, and its current release status as alpha is kind of funny given that it's been rock stable for a year).

Just off the top of my head, you mention ACID. MySQL now offers a choice of back-end table managers that range from the original fast, but strictly non-ACID version to Berkely DB (which is fairly fast and supports transactions, but I think falls short of ACID in terms of rollback) and the fully ACID InnoDB, which is the (now open source) back end from the Progress database.

So take your pick, depending on your app. Do you want speed? Transactions? Full ACID? Better yet, you can make that choice on a table-by-table basis!

MySQL also has the best full-text-searching features I've seen in any DB, open or closed.

There are limitations, and I might choose another DB for certain specific tasks (e.g. Oracle for statisics in the DB) but MySQL is a great first choice for most projects.

Most of your points on MySQL are out of date. Its featureset has progressed a great deal since, apparently, you last looked into it. Even way back when this was a hot topic (when PostgreSQL, another excellent open source DB, was an up-and-comer), MySQL developers were already saying that most of people's concerns were being addressed in upcoming releasesd... Those releases have since come and gone (mostly in the form of 4.0, though IMHO, 4.1 is MySQL's finest moment, and its current release status as alpha is kind of funny given that it's been rock stable for a year).

Just off the top of my head, you mention ACID. MySQL now offers a choice of back-end table managers that range from the original fast, but strictly non-ACID version to Berkely DB (which is fairly fast and supports transactions, but I think falls short of ACID in terms of rollback) and the fully ACID InnoDB, which is the (now open source) back end from the Progress database.

So take your pick, depending on your app. Do you want speed? Transactions? Full ACID? Better yet, you can make that choice on a table-by-table basis!

MySQL also has the best full-text-searching features I've seen in any DB, open or closed.

There are limitations, and I might choose another DB for certain specific tasks (e.g. Oracle for statisics in the DB) but MySQL is a great first choice for most projects.

Triggers are scheduled for implementation in MySQL version 5.1. A trigger is effectively a type of stored procedure, one that is invoked when a particular event occurs.

Triggers are scheduled for implementation in MySQL version 5.1. A trigger is effectively a type of stored procedure, one that is invoked when a particular event occurs.

Triggers are scheduled for implementation in MySQL version 5.1. A trigger is effectively a type of stored procedure, one that is invoked when a particular event occurs.

DB > create table crash_q (a int check (a>0))
OK

DB > insert into crash_q values(0)
OK

Stored procedures are being implemented in our version 5.0 development tree.

How does the code quality of the free MySQL v4.0.17 compare with the priced MySQL v4.1? They're both open source (source code downloads), but 4.1 has a proprietary non-GPL license with a price attached. What do you get for your money, other than "new features"?

How does the code quality of the free MySQL v4.0.17 compare with the priced MySQL v4.1? They're both open source (source code downloads), but 4.1 has a proprietary non-GPL license with a price attached. What do you get for your money, other than "new features"?

untrue, MySQL IS ported to the most popular platforms too, Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, and more... Please make sure of your facts before posting next time.

Actually, Microsoft SQL server is ripped off from the same obscure antique database server that a couple of guys in Sweden disliked sufficiently that they felt motivated to rewrite it from scratch; and, just to make sure that the original company would never see a single crown in royalties for such a lousy product, they made it free {because cheap is good when you are buying software} and open-source {because cheap is good when you're employing people to fix bugs for you}. The rest, as they say, is history {and so will Microsoft be by 2020}.

So when your boss tells you to install Microsoft SQL Server, install this instead. It's faster, it's more stable, it supports roughly the same deviations from ANSI ..... nobody's ever gonna notice the difference except the poor sod who has to keep fixing it when it packs up and is now out of a job. The only worry is that your boss might find out that it wasn't Microsoft SQL server at all, and try to sack you. However, if they actually install Microsoft SQL Server, it will crash horribly before you can say "Industrial Tribunal", and you should get your old job back. Though, frankly, I'd rather be on the dole than work for a d.h. like that.

Actually, Microsoft SQL server is ripped off from the same obscure antique database server that a couple of guys in Sweden disliked sufficiently that they felt motivated to rewrite it from scratch; and, just to make sure that the original company would never see a single crown in royalties for such a lousy product, they made it free {because cheap is good when you are buying software} and open-source {because cheap is good when you're employing people to fix bugs for you}. The rest, as they say, is history {and so will Microsoft be by 2020}.

So when your boss tells you to install Microsoft SQL Server, install this instead. It's faster, it's more stable, it supports roughly the same deviations from ANSI ..... nobody's ever gonna notice the difference except the poor sod who has to keep fixing it when it packs up and is now out of a job. The only worry is that your boss might find out that it wasn't Microsoft SQL server at all, and try to sack you. However, if they actually install Microsoft SQL Server, it will crash horribly before you can say "Industrial Tribunal", and you should get your old job back. Though, frankly, I'd rather be on the dole than work for a d.h. like that.

Please explain this.

From the page:

6.4.2 Subquery Syntax

A subquery is a SELECT statement inside another statement. For example:

SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE column1 = (SELECT column1 FROM t2);
In the above example, SELECT * FROM t1 ... is the outer query (or outer statement), and (SELECT column1 FROM t2) is the subquery. We say that the subquery is nested in the outer query, and in fact it's possible to nest subqueries within other subqueries, to a great depth. A subquery must always be inside parentheses.

Starting with version 4.1, MySQL supports all subquery forms and operations which the SQL standard requires, as well as a few features which are MySQL-specific.