mysql.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

MySQL is far easier and faster than PostgreSQL.... by javabandit · 2001-10-10 02:29 · Score: 1 · on Major Changes To MySQL Coming Soon

I'm not ragging on PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is the most feature-rich, open-source implementation of a SQL92 database out there.

But the fact is, MySQL simply kills it in performance. Which is usually the number one issue with any kind of database. That isn't to say that PostgreSQL is bad. It just isn't as fast. That's all. Here's a benchmark of MySQL versus other databases... including PostgreSQL.

All of this being said... if MySQL gets the following features, I think PostgreSQL will lose ground on MySQL again:

1) Nested sub-queries/sub-selects *coming in 4.x*
2) Update a table with joins to other tables. *coming in 4.x*
3) Delete from a table with joins to other tables. *coming in 4.x*
4) Stored procedures *coming in 4.x*
5) Triggers *who knows*

With 4.1, they will be most of the way there. With triggers, they will be pretty much feature complete.

Personally, I'd like to see materialized views implemented once all of this is done. I think that having materialized views will position MySQL as a serious consideration in the IT industry an an 'Oracle killer'. Lots of companies have already trashed Oracle in favor of MySQL. Those that have not... usually haven't done it because of lack of features in MySQL.

Hopefully that changes.

Re:Wow! by Nugget94M · 2001-10-10 00:33 · Score: 1, Flamebait · on Major Changes To MySQL Coming Soon

This also shows you that most applications using dbs are not that complex - just updating one row at a time is fine.

This use case is most certainly not fine in mysql, though, due to its refusal to support anything more granular than full table locks.

It's difficult to take a platform seriously when the documentation makes silly rationalizations like "For large tables, table locking is MUCH better than row locking for most applications" which is about the silliest load of crap I've read since they pulled the paragraph from the mysql documentation that explained why you'd never want to use foreign keys (it was removed once mysql began supporting foreign keys).

MySQL's main feature seems to be its immense popular support among people who haven't used any of the alternatives. Not a very compelling endoresement, if you ask me.

Re:Decent comparison of mysql and pgsql by Anonymous Coward · 2001-10-10 00:01 · Score: 0 · on Major Changes To MySQL Coming Soon

Crashme tests are hardly "biased"
(I am yet another ac by-the-way...)

Re:Um, transactions anyone? by Osty · 2001-10-09 21:44 · Score: 3, Informative · on Major Changes To MySQL Coming Soon

To me, the fundamental feature missing is foreign key constraint, which I see is not even mentioned among the new features.

Exactly! Take a look at http://www.mysql.com/doc/B/r/Broken_Foreign_KEY.ht ml and see why they don't have foreign key support yet. They simply say it's scheduled for inclusion in the "near future" (I'm not sure what their definition of "near" is, but that page has been up for months now, and foreign key support still isn't slated for 4.0 or 4.1). Don't hold your breath, and either switch to a real rdbms (a la pgsql), or continue to work around mysql's deficiencies on an app-by-app basis.

Re:Does MySQL Scale? by VB · 2001-09-14 16:21 · Score: 2 · on Handling the Loads

So, you're suggesting Oracle could do better on the same hardware? Perhaps you could provide a more compelling argument if you showed similar stats to what these 6 little servers produced over the past couple days running on an Oracle setup.

MySQL is the fastest database on the planet. It lacks features: not speed. If you outgrow this database, you switch to which one?...

Re:database duplication by MikeBabcock · 2001-09-14 09:01 · Score: 2 · on Handling the Loads

Go to MySQL's Homepage and read up on their replication system.

Backing Oracle... do you work for Larry Ellison? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-09 05:41 · Score: 0 · on Lego and the IP Conundrum

MySQL has long been a favourite among people who want to set up a database backed web page, but are too cheap to pay for oracle.

What's up with supporting Oracle, are you in sales at Oracle? This is one strange way to boost sales. As far as your complaints about MySQL, why don't you do some research before pulling numbers like "50 connections" out of your butt. Start with reading about MySQL at yahoo finance. Or are you just a lame troll? By the way, I don't know why you think there's a problem with Slashdot, the site works great for me.

Will include mysql driver for connecting MySQL db? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-01 09:13 · Score: 0 · on Linux Office Suites

Please i am waiting for these feature for a long time!
Will include mysql driver for accesing Mysql databases directly using StarOffice Base.
It has been for a long time in TODO list, in Openoffice homepage:
"You can connect indirectly to a MySQL database using the existing ODBC and JDBC database drivers. This project could benefit from an driver that accesses a MySQL database directly"
Come on MySQL, Openoffice developers give us a good notice, It will be great.

From stories past... Slashdot funds MySQL? by The_Messenger · 2001-08-24 06:18 · Score: 1 · on MySQL Gets Perl Stored Procedures

I was rereading an old story from when Slashdot moved to Exodus, and Malda has this to say:

Fault tolerance was a big issue. We've started by load balancing anything that could easily be balanced, but balancing MySQL is harder. We're funding development efforts with the MySQL team to add database replication and rollback capabilities to MySQL (these improvements will of course be rolled into the normal MySQL release as well).

I'm curious, Taco, what happened with this? It was before VA Itsux bought Bendover, so maybe the funding got nixed then? Or did they spend all of the money on designing the new logo?

MySQL Support by spachev · 2001-08-14 07:02 · Score: 1 · on Open Source Database Underdogs

We do not offer a true 24x7 phone support, but we get close - most support requests are answered in a couple of hours and you are talking to the developer in charge of the code in question. Many of our customers have commented that the quality of our support is much higher than what they have ever seen from commercial vendors. For more info on our support options, see https://order.mysql.com/

Sasha Pachev

growing trend.. by TechnoVooDooDaddy · 2001-08-14 01:09 · Score: 4, Insightful · on Open Source Database Underdogs

Actually, I've noticed a growing trend in the crowd of programmers I run with is not to care about the implementation platform.. SQL is SQL, and you don't do transactional based stuff on the platform anymore, you abstract away from that into your middleware, and do things the way you want to. In REAL LIFE programming, you often don't have the chance or opportunity to spec out what your back-end platforms are, you have to deal with what's given, or what's legacy at Company XYZ Inc. You also are often dictated a programming langauge for the project whether it be java, c, cobol, perl, python or whatever. The real value lies in being able to adjust to whatever the PROJECT calls for, and being able to implement on just about any platform you need with strong good design patterns. MySQL and Oracle both do exactly the same thing from my point of view, hold data in a relational format for storage and quick retrieval. Putting too much logic into the database only serves to slow things down in the long run. Nasa Switches from Oracle to MySQL shows us why Oracle putting all those bells and whistles in their product may lead to a weakening of their marketshare ultimately. The fact is, bells and whistles cost memory and processor, and there's a balance between the two that Oracle seems to be blithly ignoring.

Re:The BSA is concerned about software piracy by kimihia · 2001-07-30 06:18 · Score: 2 · on Under The Surface Of The BSA Anti-Piracy Campaign

I wonder if they paid for that copy of MySQL ...

(MySQL now comes in a new dolphin flavoured package.)

Re:The BSA is concerned about software piracy by kimihia · 2001-07-30 06:18 · Score: 2 · on Under The Surface Of The BSA Anti-Piracy Campaign

I wonder if they paid for that copy of MySQL ...

(MySQL now comes in a new dolphin flavoured package.)

Re:Good for the community by joneshenry · 2001-07-14 10:12 · Score: 2 · on MySQL & Nusphere

I'd like to know what in hell you're talking about. NuSphere has stated in for example the posting cited that "The Gemini table handler itself is already part of MySQL and is licensed under the GPL" and that "The Gemini component itself will be released via mysql.org as GPL as previously announced". NuSphere has given zero indication that they're going to challenge the validity of any part of the GPL. What gives you the idea that if a US court rules that a software license is invalid that suddenly the code becomes vulnerable to any and all use, and what indication have you had from recent US court rulings that the courts are about to give non-copyright-holders MORE rights over source code? The developers of MySQL have scrupulously arranged development so they control the copyright of the code. The issue is what exactly did MySQL AB and NuSphere contract for and is that set of agreements still in effect. It's orthogonal to the validity of the GPL.

Re:Please explain to me by ClarkEvans · 2001-07-14 07:01 · Score: 2 · on MySQL & Nusphere

It is a bit more complicated than this.

While the APIs may be LGPL'd, in the case where you have developed an application which requires MySQL for operation, then you must either license your application under the GPL or apply for a commerical license see the policy page which spell this out.

Re:Please explain to me by ClarkEvans · 2001-07-14 07:01 · Score: 2 · on MySQL & Nusphere

It is a bit more complicated than this.

While the APIs may be LGPL'd, in the case where you have developed an application which requires MySQL for operation, then you must either license your application under the GPL or apply for a commerical license see the policy page which spell this out.

Re:Please explain to me by mlc · 2001-07-14 06:52 · Score: 1 · on MySQL & Nusphere

MySQL is Free, released under the GPL, with client library under the LGPL. Either you're thinking of some previous licence that MySQL used to be under, or you don't understand the GPL. Unless your application needs to be linked with the MySQL server, you can basically do whatever you want.

From MySQL's licensing policy page:

You do not need a license to include the client code in commercial programs. The client part of MySQL licensed with the LGPL GNU Library General Public License. The mysql command-line client includes code from the readline library that is under the GPL.

-- // mlc, user 16290

Re:Please explain to me by Drone-X · 2001-07-14 06:49 · Score: 1 · on MySQL & Nusphere

That's just not true, their APIs are LGPL'd. Since you're not linking against MySQL itself you're free to license your program as you wish and distribute it as you wish (of course keeping the GPL and LGPL licenses for MySQL and the API you use).

Time to give it back by Shortcut+to+CmdrTaco · 2001-07-14 03:23 · Score: 5 · on MySQL & Nusphere

NuSphere is obviously trying to delude people into thinking they are responsible for MySQL AB's product. Quoted from mysql.org:

mySQL.org is dedicated to the promotion and improvement of the fast, free, and flexible MySQL database. We provide the Open Source community a center for free downloads, information and communication, as well as all the files you need to build applications based on MySQL, the #1 open source database.

mySQL.org is a free service to the Open Source development community. You may browse our site freely, but become a member so that we can keep you posted on new site initiatives. mySQL.org offers easy access to the best binaries and source available to database programmers.

We are looking for talented individuals to contribute to the community. For those willing to help maintain the code, documentation, or support resources, please email support@mysql.org.

They have their little spat with MySQL AB, and want to steal control of the software as payback. It reeks of opportunism. MySQL AB is doing an excellent job on their database and they don't need NuSphere stealing their work and trying to take credit for it. NuSphere can develop its derivative products just fine without trying to take the open source mysql away from its authors.

--The Shortcut

Re:MySQL is GPL and the extension isn't? How so? by ClarkEvans · 2001-07-12 06:40 · Score: 1 · on MySQL.com vs. MySQL.org?

From this link it says... NuSphere MySQL Advantage includes an unauthorized modified version of MySQL which includes support for GEMINI tables. As long as GEMINI is not released under open source, as required by the GPL license of the MySQL server, we at MySQL AB can't recommend anyone to use this distribution. Also, NuSphere uses our trademark in the product name and elsewhere without our permission.

The GPL is pretty clear, NuSphere can't be distributing GEMINI unless it does so under the GPL or unless they get an exception from MySQL AB (clause 10). Since MySQL AB is unlikely to give them an exception ... hello GPL'd GEMINI! Where do I write in for my copy of the source code?

This is in addition to the trademark issue, which I personally think is rude on behalf of NuSphere. Now, don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with forking MySQL... but one shouldn't fork and try to take the trademark with it. Perhaps NuSphere should give their product a new name (GeminiSQL) and say "derived from MySQL", no problem here and further, they should get off the mysql.org domain name...

NEW USERS ARE a little confused here... by BadlandZ · 2001-07-12 00:17 · Score: 1 · on MySQL.com vs. MySQL.org?

Have you looked at mysql.org? It would not be clear to any new user that it was not the offical site for MySQL, but insted a commercial site.

They have the MySQL documentation stacked behind a advertizment for books, then a registration form. It's just... Bad...

I don't blame MySQL AB one bit for getting pissed off. I think they have a right to be, and at least they are clear about what MySQL is.

Re:Sounded harsh until I looked at mysql.org by bbh · 2001-07-11 23:33 · Score: 3 · on MySQL.com vs. MySQL.org?

Yes, I agree with this statement. When I went to mysql.org it really does look like it would be the standard website for the mysql distribution. In fact the only reference to the AB company on that website was the little blurb at the bottom that said "If you are looking for the MySQL AB company, click here." . This makes it sound like there simply referring you to some other commercial distribution of mysql. If a person did not know about mysql or the company behind it this website would not provide them with that information. In fact the licensing page isn't really even correct between the mysql.org and the mysql.com pages:

http://www.mysql.com/support/arrangements/policy.h tml

http://www.mysql.org/content.php?menu=18&page_id=6

bbh

Re:Sounded harsh until I looked at mysql.org by Calle+Ballz · 2001-07-11 23:28 · Score: 2 · on MySQL.com vs. MySQL.org?

From www.mysql.org...

If you are looking for the MySQL AB company, click here. If you came here looking for NuSphere, click here.

Re:Mistake by Michael+Widenius · 2001-06-25 07:32 · Score: 1 · on Red Hat DB = PostgreSQL - Confirmed

Hi!
I just wanted to point out a couple of simple faults in your posting as a lot of your statements are based on beliefs, not facts. It's always a good policy to check things up before starting to comment on them

MySQL uses threads instead of processes, which are more scalable when you have many connections.
We have users that runs one MySQL server with 2000 simultaneous connections doing 400 queries per second. I think these numbers speaks for themself.
MySQL's default table type MyISAM can mix inserts/selects without locking problems.
With InnoDB tables in MySQL you get all the benefits you have with the transaction safe tables in PostgreSQL, but without ever have to run vacuum. InnoDB is a new addition to MySQL, but on the other hand so is MVCC to PostgreSQL.
When it comes to queries, MySQL is usually 2-5 times faster than PostgreSQL, with speed differences up to 100 times.
The important thing here is not which database is better, but when it's better. No database can be good for everything and if anyone is claiming this, he doesn't know what he is speaking about.
In comparison to ANY benchmark that I have seen posted for PostgreSQL, the MySQL benchmark has been published in source with an exact description of how to repeat the results.
It's true that the benchmarks on the MySQL web site doesn't cover any tests with concurrent users, but this is something that we are working on; It's not trivial to write a fair multi-user benchmark that everyone can agree on and we have simple not have anyone that has had time to do this. We did however just employ a person to start working on this so things will change in the near future.
You can find a comparison between MySQL and PostgreSQL seen from the other side at: comparison

Monty
CTO of MySQL AB

Re:Sorry, MySQL... by l-ascorbic · 2001-06-22 18:11 · Score: 1 · on Red Hat DB = PostgreSQL - Confirmed

Have any OSS databases been ported to MacOSX?

No port needed. Just compile it.

Did I mention how much I love this OS?

Foriegn Key Support by Metrol · 2001-06-22 11:24 · Score: 2 · on Red Hat DB = PostgreSQL - Confirmed

But - MySql has been plagued by the fact that they never implemented foreign key support into their DBMS.

Well, they know this as well. Please note the 1st item on the todo list for version 4.0.

Re:Mistake by Chuck+Chunder · 2001-06-22 10:35 · Score: 2 · on Red Hat DB = PostgreSQL - Confirmed

I rarely use MySQL (and use PostgreSQL every day) but I thought the MySQL documentation was pretty good.

Re:Article short on details by teg · 2001-06-20 03:24 · Score: 2 · on Red Hat Enters The Database Market

MySQL does support transactions for some of the table types it supports, but it lacks other essentials like foreign keys and subselects. More details can be found in their docs

How will it stack up, though. by don_carnage · 2001-06-20 01:23 · Score: 2 · on Red Hat Enters The Database Market

There are quite a few very well established databases out there already: MySQL, Oracle, Postgres to name a few. Just so long as I can do this, I'll be happy:

select c.name
from customer c
where c.id in (select cl.id
from collections cl
where cl.debt > 0)

--

Re:The trouble with open source games. by cthulhubob · 2001-05-18 01:18 · Score: 1 · on OpenQuartz: A GPLed 3D Shooter

> second only in difficulty to programming enterprise-scale RDBMS systems.

You mean like Mysql?

Or perhaps PostgreSQL? NASA recently gave up Oracle in favor of MySQL, if I recall correctly. Besides which, on the gaming end, I recently purchased Tribes2, but I still find myself playing GLtron and Freeciv and Nethack more than anything else.

Surprisingly enough, all those games are also under the GPL.

The difficulty of making a game engine is exactly why Free Software is an ideal solution.

Re:Not really... by rgmoore · 2001-05-17 09:22 · Score: 2 · on Mundie Responds

But who says that you have to make your money by selling the software? The issue is whether a company can make money by developing Free Software and then building their business around some combination of selling that software, customizing it, consulting, training, etc. MySQL is an excellent example of a company that does this kind of thing. They spend money developing a product that people like and releasing it under the GPL. They make money by providing training, support, and consulting. They also maintain the copyright to the whole program, so they can sell the right to use it as an embedded database in non-GPLed products, and the trademark, which must be licensed to advertize the use of MySQL as part of a product. IIRC, SleepyCat Software does something similar with the BerkelyDB. DB development seems to be an area where this model is quite reasonable, which is one reason that people think that Oracle could probably GPL their DB engine and remain very profitable.

Free DB's are getting mainstream by Arethan · 2001-04-23 21:07 · Score: 1 · on IBM To Purchase Informix Database

Apparently MySQL, PostgreSQL and SleepyCat aren't exactly out of the running for comercial applications either. This article from the MySQL homepage tells of Oracle's creation of a migration kit for "upgrading" from MySQL to Oracle. At least one of the big few are starting to recognize that not everyone starts out using thousand dollar software.

Streaming MP3 Server... by don_carnage · 2001-04-08 00:07 · Score: 2 · on Apache As An MP3 Server

I am working on something similar using HTML::Mason and MySQL.

I have the ability to search the database for a particular tune, save playlists, save favorites, recommend titles to others, etc. It's pretty stable, so if you're interested, pop me an email here: dcarnage at spookyworld.dnsalias.com.

--

So if I can tell parables by AntiPasto · 2001-03-23 05:22 · Score: 1 · on Michael Abrash's Black Book For Download

... about computer things... does that make me cool too? Like this guy who wrote this book?

Actually, this sort of thing is what we need more of in computer documentation. Compare the fluid vast documentation of say, PHP, to the rigid cold nothing that is MySQL. Stories, fables, whatever... it worked in the past to convey complex ideas, and we must as a whole develop man pages for masses.

HotelNIX is my idea to have stories contributed from the public that convey complex computer programming or administrative tasks in clear, easy to relate stories. I need help with developing a submission/content management system. Anyone interested?

----

Re:Interesting by Lonewolf666 · 2001-03-06 17:10 · Score: 1 · on MS Squashes SQL Benchmarks

A system that needs this kind of protection from bad publicity might have a lousy performance.
Once people realize that this is the only good reason to put a "don't publish benchmark results" in the EULA, their sales will (hopefully) crumble.
BTW, Oracle has a similar clause in their licence agreements.
Actually, in the RDBMS discussion lately someone pointed to http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html , where MySQL makes the "big" databases look pretty bad.
Now one might argue that MySQL doesn't have proper transactions and saves time by not doing those, but these results are still interesting.

Expensive RDBMs can save time if not money by louzerr · 2001-03-06 02:09 · Score: 1 · on Are Expensive RDBM Systems Worth The Money?

Within the past 6 months, I took a new job, leaving behind Oracle, for MySQL. I also packed away my $300 worth of Oracle books, and replaced them with one book on MySQL.

There are many things I now miss about Oracle. MySQL does allow user functions, but they must be written in C (instead of PL/SQL), and they need to be recompiled for each environment. MySQL doesn't have the useful ON DELETE CASCADE, or any of the features Oracle gives you for foriegn references. MySQL's procedure for creating unique ids is to set AUTO_INCREMENT for a field - much simpler and easier than Oracle's procedure: create a SEQUENCE, then create a TRIGGER ON INSERT to pull the next number from the sequence and insert it as the id. The Oracle version is a lot more complicated, but offers a much better functionality, functionality that I wish I could use in MySQL - more than one table in Oracle can use the same sequence! (This means you can join multiple tables, and they can still have unique ids). Oracle also allows you to create a VIEW - kind of a virtual table based on a select statement - which other developers can then use as if it were a table. And probably the most important to it's users, Oracle has a multitude of very decent front-end tools for administration as well as simple data access.

If you (and your staff) have a larger checkbook than development & database experience, you may be better off investing in Oracle, Oracle-related books, and maybe even some Oracle classes. It's arguably the best relational database that money can buy. There are also a ton of books, and classes available to bring your staff up to speed with using Oracle.

But being in a shop full of developers, we can get around what isn't there on MySQL, and do it for far cheaper (including the cost of our time) than purchasing an Oracle installation

As far as support, if you think MySQL is unsupported, you better read their licensing policy. I've found they actually have very good support - that is, after all, where they make their money!

The next generation search engine -- TRY IT!

Re:Remember [Inertia] by SirGeek · 2001-03-05 13:37 · Score: 1 · on Are Expensive RDBM Systems Worth The Money?

If Oracle is so great.. why did NASA switch to MySQL ?

Re:Dear nerd: speak for yourself by RussGarrett · 2001-03-05 04:38 · Score: 1 · on Linux On Windows - The Thin End Of The Wedge?

How can I set up a local server to test my PHP and CGI scripts [which use Sendmail and MySQL along the road]?

Apache for Windows
PHP for Apache for Windows
MySQL for Windows (which works with PHP for Apache for Windows)
I use this software daily on my Win2K machine for developing PHP for use on my Linux servers.
I wouldn't dream of using Windows as a big server - same as I wouldn't dream of using Linux as a decent desktop.

As for macs, well...

Re:What a TERRIFIC idea! by joshwa · 2001-03-04 22:43 · Score: 1 · on Linux On Windows - The Thin End Of The Wedge?

You can already run Apache / PHP on windows. You can even run Perl, Python, and MySQL!

Using Access with PHP, mySQL by infernalC · 2001-03-04 22:40 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Access As A Client For Free Databases?

It is very possible to develop your db application in Access and use mySQL as a backend. Use myODBC (free software, stable). Once you install this driver, you can create a machine data source to point to each of your mysql server's db's. Next, create your tables in mySQL. Then, create an mdb (Access application). Instead of creating new tables in Access, use the Link Table feature, select your myODBC data source, and then develop your application as you would have if you had created your tables in Access.

So, you want to web enable this with PHP4? Can do! Access is capable of exporting an ASP application which manipulates your db via ODBC (MS assumes you are running IIS, Win2K). You may take this exported ASP and use the asp2php application to crank out php code. A simple find-and-replace operation should be able to correctly point PHP at mySQL instead of Access.

Whatever you do, you should let the boss know that it needs to be web-enabled. Browsers are free, Access is not. Unfortunately, Access-generated ASP files fail the XHTML 1.0 validator post-processing miserably, and I don't think they even use external CSS.

All this can be accomplished much more easily with a plain old mySQL client, emacs, Apache and PHP. Perhaps someone could start a benchmarking project to compare processing time for functionally equivalent scripts on the PHP4+Zend/mySQL/Apache/Linux and ASP/SQL-Server/IIS/Win2K platforms. That way you could have some tangible evidence to use to convince your boss to get off the MS soap box.

Good luck.

Re:Why? Oh God, Why? by leonbrooks · 2001-03-04 12:45 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Access As A Client For Free Databases?

MySQL simply will never, ever be able to do any of the things that MS SQL does, and does well.

Want to bet on that? (-:

MySQL does suck in some areas (row-level locking is a new feature, for example, and until MaxSQL, transactions will be only a dream) but unlike MS-SQL, it's relatively easy to improve. Likewise PostgreSQL, which already does a significant number of things that MS-SQL doesn't, and lots of them much faster as well - and is easy to improve.

But if your application is mostly reads, and structurally simple (many, even most, DB apps are), why on Earth would you bother with the expensive, proprietary and resource-thirsty MS-SQL, even now, even three years ago? So you have to rewrite two or three JOIN statements? Oooooh, whip me with chains, that is so difficult a task, I impress even myself with my ability to complete it! Big fat hairy deal.

MySQL back-end - MS Access front-end by noz · 2001-03-04 08:34 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Access As A Client For Free Databases?

There's an article (not necessarily good, but useful) over at DevShed that explains how to get MyODBC to work with MySQL and then link a Microsoft system running MS Access to it.

Here it is.

MySQL back-end - MS Access front-end by noz · 2001-03-04 08:34 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Access As A Client For Free Databases?

There's an article (not necessarily good, but useful) over at DevShed that explains how to get MyODBC to work with MySQL and then link a Microsoft system running MS Access to it.

Here it is.

My experience: not optimal but viable by Vajsvarana · 2001-03-04 03:59 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Access As A Client For Free Databases?

More than one year ago I had to build a database-driven internet site... I decided to use MySQL as the backend, but to quickly develop the data-entry frontend I tried Access97, in conjunction with MyODBC (MySQL ODBC drivers, downloadable here).
No problem at all (apart from the obvious Access/win95 crashes :-)) when using minimal SQL... more problems when coming to more advanced features (BLOBs, uniqueID and so on).

I think it is still a good way to quickly set up a nice interface to a simple database... but frankly in my last works I've found Web Applications written in PHP a far better solution for both flexibility and stability.