Posted by
michael
on from the some-data-loss-inevitable dept.
ulrikp writes "Swedish MySQL AB, makers of the MySQL database, have released an Alpha-version of their flagship, dubbed MySQL 5.0.0. The changesinclude basic support for SQL-99 stored procedures. Please note: Despite the version number, this is an Alpha release, and not for general consumption."
Have they fixed the most serious bug from the 4.x line yet? This makes MySQL versions greater than 3.x utterly useless for many people.
I realize and reaffirm that it is wholly their right to license their software however they like, but would it really be so awful for them to make the client library LGPL?
MySQL is not a commercial grade database.
It lacks:
Stored procedures
Real transactions
ACID properties
Outer joins
Online backups facility
Adequate performance
Support for constraints
A professional telephone support hotline
Selecting from DUAL
ADO connector
Subqueries
Support fro GROUP BY
...
I'd prefer any other database over Mysql. Even Microsoft SQL Server is better than MySQL. Anybody who'd run MySQL in a production setting should be fired on the spot, then drawn and quartered
why this matters?
by
diablobsb
·
· Score: -1, Troll
i'm yet to understand why is this of any relevance.... Why would a sane person run mysql over postgres is beyond me... Speed? have you ever compared the two? almost the same... and after mysql add support for real database functions I doubt the speed will be the same...
People cheering up for finally having store procedure and sub-queries...
postgres has had that for millenia.../me refuses to install a toy-db-access-like-crap like mysql....
oh and by the way... does it still choke if you have a high load on or big db on it? all previous versions would...
-- I for one, welcome our new hot grits... PROFIT!
Point release? Must be...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: -1, Troll
a slow news day.
Oh yeah, forgot...
great, now all we need is...
by
SuperBanana
·
· Score: -1, Troll
The changes include basic support for SQL-99 stored procedures.
Great. Now all we need is SQL(any year, take your pick) compliance(mysql is case-sensitive, among other things), triggers, a database that doesn't hose its data if shut down improperly(PostgreSQL, because it uses a transaction log and writes to disk very safely, makes it nearly impossible to loose much if you shut it down improperly, or even yank the cord), PROPER transaction support(their transaction support is very limited in what can actually happen in a transaction), and better locking(nothing they have even comes close to PostgreSQL's versioning). Oh, and subselects, and OO...
Once that happens, MySQL will finally be a true challenger to PostgreSQL. Did I mention PostgreSQL also has had full-text searching for a while, and replication support is functioning in older versions?(I think it might be working in 7.4, I forget.) 7.4's FTS now supports word proximity, among other things...
Re:Windows-like version numbers
by
zahtrus
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Btw, did anybody understand what really changed?
Lemme make a short list:
Still no ANSI subselects (nested queries)
Still no ANSI stored procedures
Still no ACID transactions
Still slow as hell
Still no commercial-grade phone support
Still no consistent online backup
...
So, what's the beef?
I'll stay with Microsoft SQL server. It has a vastly superior feature set, and a reputable company standing behind it.
MySQL, no thanks!
Re:MySql vs. Postgres
by
kpharmer
·
· Score: 1, Troll
> So far, i'm not doing anything out of the ordinary. nothing too complicated database wise. > What exactly would be the advantage of using Postgres.
How's this - you'll be using a mature database that has a good implementation of almost all standard database functionality - vs one that has only implemented some of it, and has repeatedly claimed that this standard functionality wasn't necessary.
So, now MySQL is quickly trying to check off all these deficiencies, which include:
- transactions
- unions
- subselects
- triggers
- views
- stored procedures
- stored procedures
- parallelism
- online backups
- replication
- clustering
- etc Some of these have been partially implemented in the 4.1 release, some are now being addressed in this new alpha. Most exist today in postgresql - and are now being incrementally improved.
Who knows? Perhaps they'll do a competant job - on the other hand functionality like 'subselects' isn't something you simply 'check off'. You want a carefully-designed implementation that covers much of the functionality implied here - not just a minimal job.
Not to say that mysql can't do a fabulous job at improving their product in record time. However, I see no reason to give the same company that insisted this functionality wasn't necessary the benefit of the doubt here. Especially when their current stable product has so many unacceptable silent failure modes.
Happy Christmas to you too. Great writing sir, although I notice it is always the case, with very few exceptions, that the best written posts are always by trolls!
I got bit once by the table type changing back to the default during an ALTER. I don't know if it has been fixed, but beware something like ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN removing transaction support for those tables.
Also remember transactions silently fail! You need to quadrouple check everything first since you cannot rely on the database to tell you something is wrong.
I simply cannot trust myself to use MySQL for important data. Too many things to double and triple check are *still* correct and properly constrained.
Slashdot Mirror
don't moan. if they're too slow for you hack it together yourself
Have they fixed the most serious bug from the 4.x line yet? This makes MySQL versions greater than 3.x utterly useless for many people.
;)
I realize and reaffirm that it is wholly their right to license their software however they like, but would it really be so awful for them to make the client library LGPL?
Ah, well... just another reason to use a better database instead.
The Free desktop that Just Works
- Stored procedures
- Real transactions
- ACID properties
- Outer joins
- Online backups facility
- Adequate performance
- Support for constraints
- A professional telephone support hotline
- Selecting from DUAL
- ADO connector
- Subqueries
- Support fro GROUP BY
- ...
I'd prefer any other database over Mysql. Even Microsoft SQL Server is better than MySQL. Anybody who'd run MySQL in a production setting should be fired on the spot, then drawn and quarteredi'm yet to understand why is this of any relevance....
/me refuses to install a toy-db-access-like-crap like mysql....
Why would a sane person run mysql over postgres is beyond me...
Speed? have you ever compared the two? almost the same... and after mysql add support for real database functions I doubt the speed will be the same...
People cheering up for finally having store procedure and sub-queries...
postgres has had that for millenia...
oh and by the way... does it still choke if you have a high load on or big db on it? all previous versions would...
I for one, welcome our new hot grits... PROFIT!
a slow news day.
Oh yeah, forgot...
Great. Now all we need is SQL(any year, take your pick) compliance(mysql is case-sensitive, among other things), triggers, a database that doesn't hose its data if shut down improperly(PostgreSQL, because it uses a transaction log and writes to disk very safely, makes it nearly impossible to loose much if you shut it down improperly, or even yank the cord), PROPER transaction support(their transaction support is very limited in what can actually happen in a transaction), and better locking(nothing they have even comes close to PostgreSQL's versioning). Oh, and subselects, and OO...
Once that happens, MySQL will finally be a true challenger to PostgreSQL. Did I mention PostgreSQL also has had full-text searching for a while, and replication support is functioning in older versions?(I think it might be working in 7.4, I forget.) 7.4's FTS now supports word proximity, among other things...
Please help metamoderate.
It doesn't have as many features as PostgreSQL and isn't true open source as PostgreSQL.
PostgreSQL isn't owned by one company. The latest release (7.4.1) of PostgreSQL was released a few days ago.
Enjoy
If you wrote this yourself, I love you.
If you stole it from someone else, I love you even more.
And the SQL server trolls as well
The response to this post (if there are any) will go like this: A bulleted list of general gripes with nothing to back them up.
Nope. A bulleted list of links:
- Still no ANSI subselects (nested queries)
- Still no ANSI stored procedures
- Still no ACID transactions
- Still slow as hell
- Still no commercial-grade phone support
- Still no consistent online backup
- ...
So, what's the beef?I'll stay with Microsoft SQL server. It has a vastly superior feature set, and a reputable company standing behind it.
MySQL, no thanks!
> So far, i'm not doing anything out of the ordinary. nothing too complicated database wise.
> What exactly would be the advantage of using Postgres.
How's this - you'll be using a mature database that has a good implementation of almost all standard database functionality - vs one that has only implemented some of it, and has repeatedly claimed that this standard functionality wasn't necessary.
So, now MySQL is quickly trying to check off all these deficiencies, which include:
- transactions
- unions
- subselects
- triggers
- views
- stored procedures
- stored procedures
- parallelism
- online backups
- replication
- clustering
- etc
Some of these have been partially implemented in the 4.1 release, some are now being addressed in this new alpha. Most exist today in postgresql - and are now being incrementally improved.
Who knows? Perhaps they'll do a competant job - on the other hand functionality like 'subselects' isn't something you simply 'check off'. You want a carefully-designed implementation that covers much of the functionality implied here - not just a minimal job.
Not to say that mysql can't do a fabulous job at improving their product in record time. However, I see no reason to give the same company that insisted this functionality wasn't necessary the benefit of the doubt here. Especially when their current stable product has so many unacceptable silent failure modes.
Happy Christmas to you too. Great writing sir, although I notice it is always the case, with very few exceptions, that the best written posts are always by trolls!
Best wishes for the new year to you.
I got bit once by the table type changing back to the default during an ALTER. I don't know if it has been fixed, but beware something like ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN removing transaction support for those tables.
Also remember transactions silently fail! You need to quadrouple check everything first since you cannot rely on the database to tell you something is wrong.
I simply cannot trust myself to use MySQL for important data. Too many things to double and triple check are *still* correct and properly constrained.
Rod Taylor