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?

Comments

All I want for Christmas...

[Hollinger]

Is Sub-selects and foreign keys. These are probably the two biggest features I've constantly found myself needing / wanting.

Re:All I want for Christmas...

[PunchMonkey]

For Christmas? I want views!!! Precious views!! I need to secure certain data from the prying eyes of account managers and sales folk. So everynight I'm rebuilding these summary tables for each user! Argh!!!

There's no such thing as row-level security.... my kingdom for views in mysql!!!

Re:All I want for Christmas...

[rtaylor]

Regarding performance:

Postgresql starts out slower in comparison, but the curve degrades much less when you throw more people at it.

For ~10 simultaneous connections or less, MySQL will be faster in simple situations (simple tables, few joins, few updates / deletes). After ~10 connections Postgresql starts to shine.

After about 200 to 300 connections Postgresql seems to be a touch faster than Oracle, but the difference in speed isn't enough to make either a choice over the other.

Anyway, great to see a MySQL release coming up. We regularly use it for batch analysis (dedicated machine, single connection, large record sets, selects only) but are debating moving to BDBs for speed reasons.

Re:postgres

[CynicTheHedgehog]

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.

Re:postgres

[technomancerX]

Basically, fulltext indexing is why I'm still using MySQL...

Re:postgres

[micromoog]

People like you are the cause of today's crappy, bloated software. There is no substitute for well-optimized code.

Re:new feature?

[jabbo]

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.

Re:Which DB is better!! THe world will never know

[HiThere]

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.

Re:MySQL supporters need to learn SQL

[NerdSlayer]

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.