Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MySQL 4 - Is it Stable?

Posted by Cliff on from the RDBMS-assessments dept.

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?

4 of 453 comments (clear)

  1. All I want for Christmas... by Hollinger · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    Michael C. Hollinger
    1. Re:All I want for Christmas... by PunchMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!!!

      --
      I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
    2. Re:All I want for Christmas... by rtaylor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Rod Taylor
  2. Re:postgres by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.