MySQL 5.0 Candidate Released

Brian "Krow" Aker (Former Slashdot Coder now MySQL Employee) writes "I am pleased to announce the release candidate for MySQL 5.0. This version has been in development now for three years. We have worked to add update-able views, ansi stored procedures, and triggers. In addition we have added a number of fun features that we are experimenting with and resolved issues with bad data inserts (which personally annoyed the hell out of me when we rewrote Slashdot a couple of years back so I am happy to see this issue go away). We look forward to feedback on the candidate and will show some love for bug reports."

Comments

SCO

[StonedRat]

Can we trust mysql to be nice folks when they're in cahoots with SCO?

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1720 37

Re:You didn't read my post.

[ajs318]

And I believe their licensing agreement prohibits the disclosure of benchmarking data.

EULAs are legally unenforcible in most jurisdictions, so the worst offence you could be accused of would be libel. And the fact that whatever you said is true is an absolute defence to libel. I say go ahead, publish and be damned!

dont get too excited

[minus_273]

support for inserts will be added in version 7.0

MS SQL Server

[Anonymous Coward]

pwns MySql

Re:I think you miss the point

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never used MySQL. PostgreSQL's performance issues have not been overcome, not by a long shot. I have an application that has to run on MySQL, PostgreSQL and Oracle. It has to do a lot of mass retrievals, and few transactions. Guess which is the fastest by far? Guess which is the slowest by far? Even with a heavily tweaked PostgreSQL, it's over 20x slower! Anything using extensive count(*) is unusable on PostgreSQL. This is a design fault, openly admitted on their mailing lists, where it comes up all the time. PostgreSQL may be fine a low volume transaction applications, but where you need performance, it always has been and looks very likely to remain the slowest dog on the block.

MySQL becomes even faster when you use InnoDB tables.

You have a hang up on "features", I guess you don't do much real business

development where results have to be delivered. A professional uses the right tool for the job, not preach fanboi retoric like you.

Nice troll, but you were rumbled. And for you information PostgreSQL was not designed from the ground up, it was an old dead application let out to opensource.

Re:Is it a "real" database yet?

[ajs318]

there are MySQL developers that thought that this was a reasonable thing to do

I have to admit, it seems to me like a totally reasonable thing to do.

So far, they haven't shown any indication that they even realise how fucked up that is

Maybe because it's not fucked up at all? Look up "graceful degradation" sometime.

If you have a web browser running on hardware that, for some reason or another, cannot display bold text, what should it do?

1. Ignore the <strong> and </strong> tags altogether, and display the text anyway, although not bold;
2. Crash horribly with an error?

You're accessing the database server from a scripting language. You know what the constraints are. If you're that bothered, you'll check before you try to insert the data. If you haven't bothered to check, you deserve what you get.

Re:I think you miss the point

[should_be_linear]

I am at work, at home I have Ubuntu Linux! True! Don't shoot, please!

found a bug. A big one.

[dAzED1]

Found a bug that prevents me from being able to use MySQL. I guess I'm just a silly nut.

Can find the bug here

First part of the description:

SCO Partners With MySQL AB to Lower Costs and Increase the Power & Scalability of Modern Database Solutions

3 September 2005

Companies to Deliver Certified Version of MySQL for SCO OpenServer 6

LINDON, Utah, Sept. 2, 2005 -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database for SCO OpenServer 6, the newest release of SCO's UNIX solutions platform. As part of the agreement, the companies will work together on a range of joint marketing, sales, training, business development and support programs that will benefit customers throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. Additionally, SCO will include a trial subscription to the MySQL Network enterprise database service with each new copy of SCO OpenServer -- and offer full MySQL Network subscriptions through its reseller channel.

But you all knew where I was going. Since when is SCO a "leading provider" of anything other than laughs and FUD the last few years?

MySQL punched themselves with this SCO deal right before they caught up with other db's - a catchup process that was too slow anyway. Already made the move away from them - was an Oracle/MySQL guy for years, now I'm an Oracle/Postgres guy, with firefox for the little/quick things. Or sometimes just a bdb backend of my own creation. With all the competition out there, MySQL didn't need to introduce this highly annoying bug into their platform.

What did haters had to say now?

[-_broken_watchman_-]

What did MySQL haters had to say now?

When it has transactions, foreign keys, stored procedures and so on... ?

it was not designed to support transactions, it was not designed to support foreign keys, it was not designed to support stored procedures.

So next time, we can get Linux, look at what didn't support the version 1.0... and... you know what? YES! We can argue this against Linux FOREVER! No matter what power it has now! And get 5:Informative!!