Slashdot Mirror
Major Changes To MySQL Coming Soon
Meltr writes: "This ZDNET article details some of the coming changes to the MySQL database server. In 4.0, to be released in mid-October: 'support for the Unicode character set, the SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) protocol, embedded database links and multitable updates' and in 4.1, to be released in December: 'nested queries and stored procedures'."
I'm just looking forward to being able to tune the FULLTEXT search function without recompiling the database server!
It sounds great, MySQL it is trying to implement many features that were missed without loosing speed.
You can have a look to these comparison between Mysql-PostgreSQL and other open source databases.
Another Open Source debacle. They add gobs of new features while leaving the most fundamental and important feature untouched (again). Feh.
Go ahead, flame away, I can take it.
The only certainty is entropy.
Ok you can have a look to these comparisons: -http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_fea tures.html
-http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/db/
-http://www.mmlabx.ua.es/mysql-postgres.html (Spanish)
-http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html
-http://phd.pp.ru/Software/SQL/PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL .html
-http://www.mysql.com/information/crash-me.php
I can tell already that this is going to be a flame war, but here are my two cents: PostgreSQL has stored procedures, unicode support, transactions, triggers, rules, and all sorts of other goodies! In fact, there is precious little that PostgreSQL doesn't have. I am using it for several projects at work, and I love it. It's great that MySQL is adding features, but it has a lot of catching up to do.
Ok you can have a look to these comparisons:a tures.html L .html
-http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_fe
-http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/db/
-http://www.mmlabx.ua.es/mysql-postgres.html (Spanish)
-http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html
-http://phd.pp.ru/Software/SQL/PostgreSQL-vs-MySQ
-http://www.mysql.com/information/crash-me.php
Foreign keys are supported since yesterday with the InnoDB table handler (check www.innodb.com for more infos).
Which front-end are you using for your MySQL-PgSQL Databases? :)
I am interesting from hearing about your experience.
I have tested:
- MS Access through MyODBC
- StarOfficce through MyODBC or UnixODBC (it is missing native support connection to MySQL but it is in StarOffice TODO list, maybe in forthcoming StarOffice 6.0?
- Rekall: it is still in Beta but seems really awesome
Do you know any other alternative which one it is your prefered? i would like hearing about you
Moderators, please read before moderating. This AC posted a bunch of uselesse links. They're either biased (from the manuals of pgsql or mysql), or zdnet-like checklists, mostly outdated.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
phppgadmin
- daniel
Turn off your computer and go outside
I really enjoy using MySQL-Front. It's free, has lots of great import/export features, and is getting quite stable. There is another good tool called Mascon, which is available in a free and non-free version.
Have to say I 100% agree with this guy. PostgreSQL is light years ahread of MySQL, and is 100% open source. The GPL'ed version of MySQL isn't even free software! (The GPL version i always a subverions or two behind, I believe.) Why people continue to use it when PostgeSQL is out there defies all logic IMHO.
the docs on the postgrersql home page are superb. They've combined their three docs (Admin,User,Programmer) into one so it is fairly easy to use and they have a nice sql reference.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
What you're forgetting is that in many web-based applications, the data *doesn't matter* (not more than nightly backups will take care of, anyway). MySQL is perfect for a whole range of web-related work, and these new additions will make it even more useful.
Except that you are forgetting that multiple recently published scores indicate that MySQL really stinks for this type of work too unless it's ALL read only access. Once you start throwing writes into the mix, MySQL falls far behind. On top of that, MySQL also has concurrent access load issues too. This means it's not going to scale very well when lots of connections are asking for lots of differing types of data from lots of different tables. Yes, it's VERY fast for one or two people (or even a small handful) doing read only access, however, use it in an environment where there are even some writes in a highly loaded system, PstgreSQL is going to beat it, not just with a stick but a full blown Loui Slugger. Once you get into the world of having a large number of writes, MySQL becomes an utter joke as PostgreSQL has lots of optimizations to take advantage of this while MySQL just rolls into a ball and cries. Of course, I've also read lots stating the PostgreSQL's query optimizer is much more advanced, so once you start doing non-trivial queries, PostgreSQL is going to win again. This will be come significantly important once (if) MySQL starts supporting sub-queries.
The point being, MySQL really isn't a great DB system after all. It may get there one day but the number of situations that it truely works well in and MySQL can address are actually very limited and nitche areas.
I would recommend trying PostgreSQL again. Relatively recently (v7.0 and v7.1) there were some major improvements in terms of speed at least. As to setting up PostgreSQL (i.e. create and configure a database), it is very easy, once used to it, and the documentation is pretty good (http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/ ).
Does a 'real' database obligatorily consists of 30 GB installation files at a price range of $10000 or are you just quoting Oracle's sale reps?
MySQL is fine with me.
The author apparently misinterpreted Marten Mickos statement. (That's
the problem with news stories that you are not allow to check before they are published).
You will find a lot of good GPL information at:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html
Regards,
Monty
I will agree that for 99.9% of MySQL users MySQL runs just fine. They don't need, nor care about, sub-selects, row-locking, triggers, etc.
:)
We used to run MySQL but found that it died *horribly* on heavy multiuser loads. (e.g. 500 concurrent users, all updating/insert/etc.)
I investigated the problem and found out that table locking really, really sucks. Last summer when we had this problem we didn't have the luxury to mess around with pre-alpha table structures and spend countless hours poking around with settings.
I carefully explored the other RDBMS's out there and eventually picked Sybase ASE 11.9.2 for Linux as the best choice. I can say it was hands-down the best choice we made. Now we're at 12.5 which supports SSL, XML, etc. and a host of other features MySQL hasn't even thought of.
Instead of 'dealing' with MySQL we're making money with something else.
So here it is:
If you are having problems with MySQL - DON'T PUT UP WITH IT. There are many other fish in the sea that will better fit your application. Simply because it is 'free' or 'popular' does not make it better for your application.
As someone else said, I always follow the 'pick the best tool for the job' test. If it is out of our price range, we either find a way to buy it or move on to the next item on our list.
I think far too often people perform the 'open source' or 'free' litmus test first -- leading to major headaches down the road.
If we were in this situation today I think we'd rather have picked Postgres, simply because it was a lot cheaper and offers many of the performance-enhancing features as the 'big three'!
Thanks,
--
Matt
I keep on seeing the same statement, over and over, saying:
"I don't understand why MySQL is so popular, the only thing it has going for it is tha it's easier to install!"
Answer...staring...right...at...you.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.