Slashdot Mirror

That article is 2 years old. MySQL has advanced greatly since.

No, it hasn't. A summary of the list of missing features:

• No subselects
• No SELECT INTO TABLE
• No stored procedures and triggers
• No Foreign Keys (!!)
• No views
• No -- as a comment parameter

Of course, they give crap rationalizations for each, and/or that "it's planned for [distant version of MySQL]". Of these features, only the last might be considered trivial, and even that is quite a pain if you're trying to write some portable SQL.

The others, particularly the lack of triggers and foreign keys, make this a data integrity nightmare for anything nontrivial.

Sure, sure, "but you can do it all in code": typical response. You know, that was their response to lack of transactions, too. "Too slow", "you don't need those". Right. You could just write a whole database in your code, too. The point of using a RDBMS (and, lacking relations of any sort, makes MySQL just a DBMS) is reliability so you don't have to constantly worry about these things.

PostgreSQL has all of the above features, and quite a few more. It's an OORDBMS. (Yes, this is very cool, and lets you do some very nifty things.) It's got better-than-row-level-locking (MVCC; MySQL does table locking only.) And all the other things people have mentioned here.

MySQL is a toy database, and should be treated as such. Not just for transactions: for all the things that make a robust RDBMS.

I have been working on a medical application using OSX, PHP, Apache, Mysql. What does this have to do with Cold Fusion? well the application was written originally in cold fusion. What I have found is that CF is great for rapid application development and proof of concept however is it not a deployment solution. If you are with a microsoft partner as you claim .. stay with their products ... otherwise all the people saying open source are correct. Also one should think twice about asking about MS products here it is essentially the same as asking people to flame you.

Lately I see more and more companies release their program/product under the General Public License, saying that, if you want to use it in a commercial product you have to buy a commercial license.

It can be.

It uses (according to the doco I've got here) any of 5 different table types, BerkleyDB being just one of them.

see the mysql doco for details

Actually, MySQL does have transaction support.

MySQL may not be something you want to rely on for mission-critical applications yet, but is certainly moving forwards in leaps and bounds.

You've posted several other times about this. The "underlying engine" in MySQL is *not* Sleepycat's BDB.

On most installations of MySQL, the "underlying engine" (which we call a "table handler") is MyISAM, an ISAM-based storage engine created by Monty Widenius, the founder and original creator of MySQL. MySQL has been from the start created so that the table handler could be easily swapped out for a newer/better/more featureful one if needbe. In version 3.23 we added support for Sleepycat's BerkeleyDB (which supports transactions and page-level locking) and also added support for Innobase Oy's InnoDB (which supports transactions, row-level locking, and multiversioning, among other features).

You can find more info at:
MySQL Manual: Table types

Regards,
Jeremy Cole, Sr. Trainer and Consultant, MySQL AB

See http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Installing_source_tree .html and follow the directions for 'cloning' the 4.1 source tree.

MySQL AB is always looking for feedback from the community on our new features.

They say in the 4.1 tree Subselects are being worked on.

If you look at what happened between MySQL and NuSphere, MySQL was never out to crucify anyone. They don't verbally bash anyone or toot their own horn. Look at what they say on their website about their own benchmarks and how they repeatedly point out that the competing products they have tested were not completely optimized due to their lack of knowledge regarding optimizations for those products.

It's still kind of odd that in their competitive comparison system, crash-me, some candidate features that are listed when you compare two other database products disappear when you add mySQL to the list you're comparing.

For instance, transactions are excluded from comparison whenever you ask to compare a database with mySQL 3.23.39. (They are included if you compare mySQL 3.23.29, in which case crash-me correctly reports that mySQL does not support transactions.)

Try it yourself. Go to crash-me with the above link. Check only the boxes for two non-mySQL databases (such as Oracle and Access, or PostgreSQL and Informix), and submit the form. Scroll down to the "Other features" section, near the bottom. You will see a row labeled "transactions". Now, go back and check the box for mySQL 3.2.39, and resubmit the page. Presto -- no line for transactions.

I'm trying to see this in a positive or even neutral light, but let me be truthful -- I can't. I don't see any honest reason that this special case would be added to the crash-me code. The only reason I can see that mySQL.com would add this behavior to their test suite would be to conceal -- indeed, to "un-ask" -- the question of whether or not mySQL supports transactions.

As of now, NuSphere's website doesn't seem to have any information about the dispute and search for "MySQL" returns

NuSphere MySQL is a fast, reliable relational database management system for developing database-driven Web sites. The integrated distribution of MySQL, Apache, Perl, ..

• Monty created MySQL as GPL software and later formed MySQL AB to commercialize it.
• NuSphere sells non-GPL software statically linked to MySQL. NuSphere ships product in GPL violation. NuSphere acquires mysql.com domain.
• MySQL AB complains, MySQL AB tries to get mysql.com domain back.
• NuSphere sues MySQL for interference in business
• MySQL AB countersues for trademark and license infringement
• They bicker
• They finally settle

I didn't know much every single detail regarding this whole argument until I read this page of frequently asked question on the MySQL vs. NuSphere dispute.

It talks about who actually created the software, as well as their take on others' claims that MySQL AB attempted to "change rules in mid-agreement" with NuSphere.

MySQL AB is pleased to announce that it has settled its lawsuit with Progress Software Corporation and NuSphere Corporation. For more information, see the joint press release at

http://www.mysql.com/press/release_2002_14.html

Regards, Monty

"Nobody wants to force you to give away some original work..."

Not true, that is the entire purpose of the GPL.
If you profit from the use of GPL code, you are
forced to donate your source code. This is being
[en]forced every day by FSF legal counsel. See

Enforcing the GNU GPL

The recent battle between Progress Software and
MySQL is a case in point.

How hard would it be to write one? Depending on the size PHP and mySQL would work fine. Or how about looking on Sourceforge and doing a search for "Asset" This turned up a number of mature projects that do what you seem to need.

yadda yadda

Nah, they use mySQL, or so it says on the mysql website. Read it here

Sorry, but you are wrong. In the DEVEL release of MySQL 4.xx the client lib is GPL, in the 3.xx version, which is still the version in wide use except for those willing to use pre-release software in production environments, the client lib is LGPL.

You might want to make sure you are right before telling others they are inaccurate.

Well, since this is for posterity (you know people will be digging into the obscure flamewars of this thread in the archives for years :) ), I feel compelled to note that, from the mysql website, we have:

The software from MySQL AB that you can download from the pages listed below, are licensed under the GPL license and is provided "as is" and is without any warranty.

'nuff said.

-- p

To a company that sells software for a living, how can free software not be enemy #1?

Because you can sell it.

You wanted it you got it....! blender is OpenSource now. We are very sorry that the site is down now but we had to move the server because our previous ISP unplugged us last thursday! Stay tuned we will be up soon.

Take note that MyCC is still alpha software, though, so crashes are to be expected. I'm glad that MySQL AB is working on this, a nice graphical client should really speed up the adoption of open source databases. Now an Access-style desktop database with a form designer would be nice -- the GNU Enterprise project is working on this. theKompany also has a proprietary product called Rekall. Any others?

Also a very addictive game called crack attack, which runs on windows and linux, and is under the GPL:
Crack Attack

Other things that you should consider include Python and PyGame (don't forget SDL as well!).

[x]Chat runs under windows (native), and is the only irc I'd consider using (beats the hell out of mirc).

Putty is an open source ssh/telnet client. Its possibly the best telnet client for use under windows. Then again, could anything be worse than C:\Windows\Telnet.exe ?

I've probably missed quite a few good ones, but these are things I seriously like.

We will outsmart OpenSource....

Read as:

We will outsmart, PHP, Perl, MySQL, OpenMosix, Apache, Audacity, Crystal Space, MiKTeX, SDL, Vega Strike, X-Tractor, FileZilla, ... (yes most of this also runs, if not exclusively, on windoze).

Or:

We will outsmart freedom and choice.

Somehow, I don't see it. Then again, a lot of money can buy a lot of laws....

while it is true that that native myisam type drops all foreign key constraints on the floor, innodb does support foreign keys. and I'm pretty sure innodb integration into mysql was the whole point of this article.

I was flabbergasted when I read it, but it's true and it works...

try it yourself... build a couple of referential tables in mysql using the innodb table type. inserts into the child table will fail without correlating data in the parent. likewise deletes from the parent will fail if child data exists.

Anyway, to be clear:

1. I know that MySQL 4.0 has subselects but I was hoping for the feature to move into production.
2. When I say you can fake transactions with LOCKs, I am not talking about running a bank. And I didn't mean to start a SQL-DB holy war by suggesting that. I was just saying that for my limited purposes, I can approximate transactions with LOCKs, but LEFT JOINs don't always cut it when sometimes I really need a SUB-SELECT.
3. Creating temporary tables to simulate a subselect doesn't always work -- especially when you have a user account on the DB which doesn't have permission to create tables or insert data.
4. Don't get me wrong, the price for MySQL is right. And the lack of a few features doesn't come close to the price-performance ratio. I am very happy with MySQL.
5. Finally, the transaction flamers just need to calm down -- because transactions are being implemented. I was ranking my personal priority for MySQL features.

Internally, through a new .frm file format for table definitions, MySQL 4.0 lays the foundation for the new features of MySQL 4.1, such as nested subqueries, stored procedures, and foreign key integrity rules, which form the top of the wish list for many of our customers. Along with those, we will also include simpler additions, such as multi-table UPDATE statements.

MySQL with INNODB tables supports foreign keys
I know I shouldn't get mad about this, because hey, this is slashdot, and so I shouldn't expect anyone to do any research whatsoever, so I'm doing it for you. (It's days like this when I really wish there was a "-1 WRONG" mod option)

If you do a Google search for "MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, you'll get a lot of hits. Here are a few that seem to be pretty informative (if not slightly dated):

here
here
here
here
here
here (not really a comparison, but read this article and the linked Postgres article for more info)

In my personal experience, Postgres has historically been the database more prepared for larger, more multi-threaded applications.

Obviously, there have been debates about which are faster in various different applications. To be honest, I have no hard data, nor have I stretched them either to their capacity, but as a user and casual developer, they are both fast enough for me not to notice.

What's inarguable exciting can be directly quoted from MySQL's own comparison of the two (listed above):

[B]oth products are continually evolving. We at MySQL AB and the PostgreSQL developers are both working on making our respective databases as good as possible, so we are both a serious alternative to any commercial database.

Then there's the shizters out there that claim to be OSS that have these so-called Open Licenses (*cough* Apple) that are really trying to use code for free. And there are the projects that were open source and free (*cough* MySQL) that turn into payware developed by the community.

You mean the MySQL that's licensed under the GPL? That MySQL?

You should do something about that cough, it might become embarrassing.

MySQL offers support...

FAQ on Technical Support From MySQL AB

Not that I choose one over the other. Right tool for the job. You don't use a push lawnmower to mow a stadium...

-techwolf

Maybe this is why MySQL isn't as popular for database(for things other then a website)?

If you are a real DBA, then having to use a SQL console or command line tools to administrate a database shouldn't be a problem. If you need to point and click to make a backup or create tables because SQL is too hard, then there is no way you can be a DBA. Besides, there is a good web based GUI, phpMyAdmin, that lets you do most things without knowing everything about SQL. There are also GUI interfaces to MySQL.

Also, PHP more popular then ASP? Possibly. But name anyone who makes money running a huge website (Slashdot excluded, they don't make money) with MySQL. There may be some, but anyone who is doing serious business isn't going to be using MySQL.

That's complete FUD. Say, do you work for Microsoft or Oracle? I can say first hand that directNIC.com uses MySQL for everything. They are a very popular domain registrar (sold over half a million domains) and are certainly making money. Many other companies use MySQL and not just for running websites. You should rethink your myths.

Fantastic is such a subjective word. Let's just say they are good.

In the case of libmysql (C native-interface library of MySQL), developers are forced to pay so much money for using GPL code(libmysql) in their software as non-GPL state, plus their customers have to pay money for commercial-licensed MySQL server.

Bull. The libmysql client software is NOT GPL but rather Lesser GPL, which allows linking the client software against a proprietary application program. "A license is not required if: You include the MySQL client code in a commercial program. The client part of MySQL is licensed under the LGPL". Even then, MySQL with InnoDB is $400 per multi-processor machine, as opposed to MS SQL's $20,000 per processor for the unlimited-client license.

Microsoft doesn't require such license fee when you use OLE/DB etc. to get native access to SQL server.

Yes it does. Microsoft SQL Server is priced based either on the number of processors or on the number of machines that will access the database.

In the case of libmysql (C native-interface library of MySQL), developers are forced to pay so much money for using GPL code(libmysql) in their software as non-GPL state, plus their customers have to pay money for commercial-licensed MySQL server.

Bull. The libmysql client software is NOT GPL but rather Lesser GPL, which allows linking the client software against a proprietary application program. "A license is not required if: You include the MySQL client code in a commercial program. The client part of MySQL is licensed under the LGPL". Even then, MySQL with InnoDB is $400 per multi-processor machine, as opposed to MS SQL's $20,000 per processor for the unlimited-client license.

Microsoft doesn't require such license fee when you use OLE/DB etc. to get native access to SQL server.

Yes it does. Microsoft SQL Server is priced based either on the number of processors or on the number of machines that will access the database.

mySQL tends to favor read-intensive activities but is a little weak on write-intensive and transaction stuff.

mySQL tends to favor read-intensive activities but is a little weak on write-intensive and transaction stuff.

mySQL tends to favor read-intensive activities but is a little weak on write-intensive and transaction stuff.

I wondered the same thing! I love PostgreSQL and there's no reason it shouldn't be kicking the crap out of mySQL. But then it hit me.

I believe what made mySQL take off was when mySQL AB released easy to install packages for windows about the same time that PHP and Apache were becoming accessible to the Windows user. That way freelance web developers and new hackers were trying the stuff out at home and Windows and *nix users were programming on the same platform (PHP/mySQL on Apache).

Today, if you want to download PostgreSQL, you have two choices on their website. Tarball or RPM. Joe Clickey-Click doesn't want or need the trouble. All he wants to do is make a guestbook for his website.

Look at what Joe Clickey-Click sees when he would like to try out either
PostgreSQL or
mySQL.

What planet have you been living on?

The best part is that mysql is integrated well with other free technologies like php and perl, which have been gaining a lot of acceptance. So when you turn to an open-source web solution you're freed from the need (hey, that-- oh you know) to run expensive oracle or sybase (or DB2, I guess I should be fair) RDBMSes. This is especially easy because websites tend to be redundant these days, so they're pretty robust by default.

Anyway, the plan is to add stored procedures and triggers in mysql 5.0. It already does replication, which one expects to improve. It's one-way now. Once these things happen, mysql will just need to undergo some serious testing and possibly some serious bugfixing to ensure stability even under really terrible conditions, and maybe provide a better management GUI, and bango! The big guys will be running scared. At that point, mysql will be able to take over all but the largest installations.

So go mysql! We're counting on you. Oracle costs too much.

The best part is that mysql is integrated well with other free technologies like php and perl, which have been gaining a lot of acceptance. So when you turn to an open-source web solution you're freed from the need (hey, that-- oh you know) to run expensive oracle or sybase (or DB2, I guess I should be fair) RDBMSes. This is especially easy because websites tend to be redundant these days, so they're pretty robust by default.

Anyway, the plan is to add stored procedures and triggers in mysql 5.0. It already does replication, which one expects to improve. It's one-way now. Once these things happen, mysql will just need to undergo some serious testing and possibly some serious bugfixing to ensure stability even under really terrible conditions, and maybe provide a better management GUI, and bango! The big guys will be running scared. At that point, mysql will be able to take over all but the largest installations.

So go mysql! We're counting on you. Oracle costs too much.

ok, first there's mysql. their license page is rather surprising. they state that their client lib is lgpl, and yet in embedded systems it seems like they're saying it's gpl. kind of odd really - seems like they're trying to extend it.

second is cygwin. they apparently release their libs under the gpl. the folks who made the readline library did the same thing. however many people who code libraries license them under the lgpl - you don't need to gpl the code that uses the libs, but you do need to lgpl the changes you add to the library. an example of this is the gnu libc which pretty much all applications link to.

lastly is tivo. it is my understanding that the tivo uses some closed source drivers. the gpl'ed linux kernel specifically allows closed source modules under certain conditions. in addition the kernel's gpl license has *zero* effect on applications that run under it. so if tivo has some application that run under linux, those applications can be closed source, bsd licensed or gpl'd.

this "viral gpl" thing gets overly hyped. the project with the largest body of source on most linux boxes is not under the gpl - the x window system is not under the gpl. the most common browser up to a few years ago was closed source. a lot of low-level utils on a linux box are licensed under the bsd license.

as far as "the gpl hasn't been tested in court" bit is just silly. most contracts haven't been tested in court. the gpl is spelled out both in plain english and legalese.

Actually, MySQL ( -max, at least as of v. 3.23.51, with InnoDB table handler, don't know with .52), supports transactions, row-level locking and foreign key constraints (ON DELETE CASCADE and ON DELETE SET NULL, if I remember correctly).

I'm actually starting to get a bit... well, pissed off with people spreading FUD either deliberately or from ignorance. The MySQL website is a good place to check. They have marvellous documentation and a handy search-feature. I suggest you go try it out.

1. If you want to use an opensource product, where do you learn about it? I know about oracle and mysql, but who do I goto for mysql paid support?

2. What about total solutions, other than RedHat or VA Software, are there other vedors? Or do I just goto IBM and Say "Linux"?

3. Are any opensource vendors bidding on government contracts?

Let's see:

• IBM gets German government contract
• MandrakeSoft wins French government contract
• IBM sells Linux to Air Force & other government agencies

4. Do the opensource vendors support 24/7 priority support?

What about public safety? (fire/police/ambulance/etc.)

For the type of service you want for a system with Linux machines, I think IBM probably is the only way to go at this point.

but who do I goto for mysql paid support?

Too easy. You go to Mysql Services.

The current problem with InnoDB is that the size must be fixed and does not grow automatically.

It doesn't?
"InnoDB tables can now be set to automatically grow in size (autoextend)."
MySQL - D.1.2 Changes in release 4.0.2 (01 July 2002)

MySQL's popularity can be traced back to the popularity of mSQL and MySQL's compatability with it. It's widespread use, however, is like the spread of Microsoft Windows or Visual Basic. Some people *believe* that MySQL is somehow "easier" or "faster", but that's just not the case.

Mysql nay-sayers on slashdot always talk about how Postgres blows Mysql out of the water, but I've never seen any evidence of that.

So, take the Pepsi challenge with me...

Postgres Faster? Well, not as of a point version ago:

http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html

Let's not forget about the joys of Postgres and "VACUUM" that locks the table. (Okay, in newer versions it doesn't have to lock the table, but then it slows everything to a crawl on a busy server)

Also, clearly just from reading slashdot, you would know there's far more people using Mysql than Postgres, far more "grassroots" open source type helpful people that everyone on slashdot supposedly loves.

Finally, compare the fucking manuals and try to argue how Postgres has an easier learning curve than Mysql. When you search the postgres site it returns a bunch of poorly named html documents, for Christ's sake.

Though I would agree that all of the SQL functions you've mentioned are useful, they aren't necessarily so for an enterprise. And honestly, not too many people in big business are using PostgresSQL. They were either duped into using SQL Server because they're MS slaves, or they use the Far Superior Oracle, and pay for Larry Elison's 20" spoke rims on his rich-dude pimp-mobile.

Here is some info that might be relevant if you're running it on linux.

Don't know if this affects all versions of MySQL or only 4.0x

Your question is rather broad and lacks any specifics, but I get this feeling you're looking for information regarding web site programming, hence the "My intention is to ask about web sites this weekend". In that case:

Sitepoint
A fantastic web site dealing with everything from learning new programming languages to design ethics to search engine tips.

Cool Home Pages
Stuck? Out of ideas? Check out some other fantastic designs. "The only known cure for designers block"

PHP.net
Even though it's the languages official site, there is a wealth of information here. Every function is very well documented and you'll recieve a ton of information.

PHP Builder
Possibly the single best resource to ask your questions - but before you do that, search the forums. Chances are your question has already been asked and has a fantastic answer.

w3schools
Great resource for all things HTML, CSS and so much more. Remember CSS is your friend on the internet - print the quick reference!

And if you're looking to getting into some open source databasing:

MySQL
Once again, the developer of an open source project has a fabulous web site just rigged with useful information.

Hold your breath and try MSDN. It's got everything about everything for MSIE, from HTML to scripting, from tutorials to reference. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but MSDN is truly useful. It's also a good reference for CSS2 properties, since these are thankfully the same (and reasonably well supported) on both MSIE and Mozilla.

To ensure cross-browser DHTML compatibility however, cross-reference with the Gecko DOM reference from the Mozilla project. It's DHTML for Mozilla; the model is completely different sadly but it works, and it's possible to write code that works for both MSIE and Mozilla/Gecko simultaneously with a little thought -- I learned most of what I know from Dan Steinman's excellent dynamic duo site.

If you're also using PHP, then you'll probably end up using MySQL as well. I learned most of the SQL I know simply by reading the MySQL manual. It's just as useful as the PHP Manual.

• If you want to compare, add Microsoft Office (StarOffice 6.0), IIS (Apache), SQL server (MySQL, PostgreSQL...), Photoshop (Gimp), Money (GnuCash)

• StarOffice 6.0 for Win32
• Apache for Win32
• MySQL for Win32
• GIMP for Win32

But heck, there isn't a GnuCash Win32 port, so I guess that makes you right. ;-P

I do have a serious point here. It's absolutely brillant that these apps are available for Win32 and other platforms, because that's pretty much the only way that market forces can actually effect Microsoft. If, for example, they start to see their highly lucrative Office sales slip in favour of Star/OpenOffice, then they might (unlikely, but possible) actually have to start doing something about stopping people from then migrating to Linux - hey, if you can run the same apps, but pay much less for the OS, then why not?

As I say, it's unlikely. I actually think that they'll just try and tighten their grip (through Palladium, tighter integration and buying legislation) rather than loosen it, but we can live in hope, right?