Slashdot Mirror
MySQL 4 - Is it Stable?
Shaklee3 asks: "I have been running version 3 of MySQL on the company's website for quite a while now. We recently ran into a problem where we needed the new features of version 4 that uses the UNION clause. We are running FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE and Apache 1.3.26. I know they reccomend not using it in a production environment yet, but from what I hear it is already being used on a few major websites. Does anyone have experience with version 4, and is it stable enough to run on a high traffic site?" If you feel MySQL isn't ready for prime-time, where specifically do you feel it needs improvement?
Is Sub-selects and foreign keys. These are probably the two biggest features I've constantly found myself needing / wanting.
Michael C. Hollinger
Don't forget that PostgreSQL is faster than most people realize. I read a benchmark that showed that on some queries it's even significantly faster than Oracle. Of course, on other queries it was significantly slower, but it all comes out in the wash. What was interesting is that while MySQL was faster on a lot of queries, Oracle and PostgreSQL actually outperformed it on a couple. What I want to know is if there are any businesses out there that can load balance PostgreSQL and have a proven track record for support similar to Oracle's "Gold" level (or whatever they call it). When all is said in done that has got to be cheaper than Oracle licenses.
I've been dying to dump our M$ SqlServer base for MySql for a long time now. Once MySql (finally) integrates stored procedures (which I think is now v4.2), that will happen, but not before.
I've heard the arguments for not needing stored procs before, but we have a application environment that is spread across multiple language and technology platforms and cannot afford the duplication in database logic.
Of course, if any one has some better suggestions, I'd be more than happy to hear them.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Basically, fulltext indexing is why I'm still using MySQL...
.technomancer
This is a summary of how many 'hits' I found for selected terms and pairs of term from 12 Dec 2001 to early July via Google's groups search when I was comparing Postgres and MySQL to see which is more trouble to maintain. You can draw your own conclusions as to their relative quality as based on their 'complaints' percentages.
postgres 17800 100 percent
MySQL 248000 100 percent
Postgres crash 358 2 percent
MySQL crash 1930 0.7 percent
Postgres corrupt 41 0.2 percent
MySQL corrupt 510 0.2 percent
Postgres slow 558 2.3 percent
MySQL slow 2830 1.1 percent
Postgres buggy 41 0.2 percent
MySQL buggy 297 0.1 percent
Postgres bugs 612 3 percent
MySQL bugs 7540 3 percent
Postgres problem 4520 25 percent
MySQL problem 42200 17 percent
Postgres hung 46 0.3 percent
MySQL hung 222 0.1 percent
Postgres happy 328 1.8 percent
MySQL happy 1810 0.7 percent
--
Benjamin Franz
Lameness filter encountered. Discussion aborted!
Reason: Please use less 'lame' filters.
People like you are the cause of today's crappy, bloated software. There is no substitute for well-optimized code.
YES!!!
:-)
THANK YOU! I was wondering how long it would be before someone noted that the challenge of UNION is akin to that of the '+' operator in Lisp...
I run all my robust projects on PostgreSQL, and the data marts on MySQL. MySQL is just a flatfile database for people too lazy to use those
Lately I've been involved in some community projects where they're currently trapped with MySQL, thank god every reasonable piece of PHP software (PHP! you know, the 'k1dd1e language'!) is now moving towards abstraction and PostgreSQL support too.
Subselects are another obvious lack -- I have more respect for MySQL's paying customers (eg. I believe now that they understand what MySQL is for, perhaps better even than the developers!) because that indicates to me that it is paid for as a straight data mart, NEVER as an Oracle substitute. Thank god someone sees this truth.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
It's silly, because it costs so much, which makes it totally impractical for a large range of purposes.
It's silly, because we hires a team of Oracle approved contractors, and after six months they didn't even have a dialog box working. So Oracle replaced them with another bunch, and they quickly go stuck too.
OTOH, some things only work with Oracle. If you need them, then that's what you have to use, warts and all.
What is better depends on what you need.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
So you should be able to build a installation package for PostgreSQL that is on par with say ActivePython or ActivePerl for Windows, and sell it (you don't have to release your code modifications) for a reasonable amount.
Too bad not that many folks know about it!
I would gladly try Postgres as it has some features that are currently missing from MySQL. But I don't feel like dealing with it.....
I've installed PostgreSQL five or six times. IIRC it involves seting a pair of environment variables, creating a user, and using configure and make. I was able to do it right after completing my first Linux instalation. I didn't find it difficult or even mildly challenging. The documentation is really good.
t'nera semordnilap