Slashdot Mirror
MySQL To Be Ikea Of The Database Market
Rob wrote to mention an article discussing MySQL's intent to become 'the Ikea of databases'. From the piece: "While new entrants into the open source database market, such as EnterpriseDB and Pervasive Software, have made no secret of their intentions to chase Oracle's market share, Mr Mickos said MySQL is happy to leave them to it. 'We are thankful that they are there to define the market, there is no product if you're the only vendor,' he said. "Pervasive and EnterpriseDB are going up against Oracle. We don't want to be in that space, we don't want to take the heat from Oracle. If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion.'"
Well then where my steaming plate of Swedish meatballs? Huh? Where are they?
And how can I deck out my house in mid-century modern MySQL? I'd like to see that.
Pfft, yet another tease.
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
That every installation comes with an Allen key and crappy instructions?
Do you want the Svansbo or the Dalsfor installation?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Pervasive and EnterpriseDB are going up against Oracle. We don't want to be in that space, we don't want to take the heat from Oracle. If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion.
That should nip the "MySQL is a replacement for Oracle under all circumstances" posts that always appear whenever MySQL is discussed on slashdot. It should, but it won't.
OIn a different note, isn't the "Ikea of databases" space already a little overcrowded? There's Firebird, McKoi, One$DB/Daffodil DB, Cloudscape, Postgres etc. Guess MySQL already pretty much own that space, so this is just a reaffirmation that they're sticking to their knitting. Doing what they do best. Very wise.
Yes, Windows brought MySQL to me.
I host my site on a commercial service, and previously I was stuck with using Access as my DB, unless I wanted to pay big SQL Server bucks. My site crashed 5 or 6 times a day because of the load on the database.
Finally my hosting service started to offer MySQL, for free...
My site stopped crashing, and now everything loads a lot faster. (I haven't converted the entire thing over to MySQL, but enough to stop the crashing.)
If MySQL were not free, I would not have converted. If it were not on Windows, I would not have converted.
But now I see it as a real possibility for use at work.
No reason to lie.
...you can take it home without a big transport, you have to figure out what they mean by odd instructions and you have to perform the assembly yourself, but when you are done you can save a bundle if your time is not that valuable.
Since when are stored procedures, triggers, and views (freaking VIEWS) enterprise features? Log shipping or automatic failover are enterprise features. Procs and views are basics.
I think Mysql is cleaning up the donkey poop, myself.
I would like to see a list of other database manufacturers listed with their retailer equivalents..... Seriously though, IKEA is a store full of very interesting, but not entirely useful gadgets. The Scandinavian connection seems to be about the only one I can make. mySQL has taken a less "gadgetey" approach to DB setup and maintenance. They have taken much criticism over the years for not including the Stored procedures, views, and triggers. These now all appear in version 5.0.
Have you Meta Moderated t
I don't think that lawyer fully understood the requirements of the GPL. (I'm no lawyer, so anyone correct me if I'm wrong).
From what I understand if you distribute the product then the source code from any product that's a derivative work of a GPLed product has to be available. That doesn't mean that if you modify something for internal use you have to tell the whole world that you change it and hand out the code. As long as it's still just internal you can keep it "closed" from the outside world.
As for anything compiled with GCC having to be licensed under the GPL, that's just a load of bull. Anything compiled with GCC is not considered a derviative work, it's a separate product. You can license it however you want.
I've already seen a comment stating that if you follow the Ikea model, you get an allen key and crappy instructions and this is just part of an experience in which walking out costs more than you expect, the product is of questionable quality and often hard to find exactly what you are looking for.
None of which are attributes you want in a database product.
I think the comment is noting that Ikea is a profitable enterprise and one that is admired by the business community, but for the most part the customer experience is lacking and not one I would think that would attract most people to.
Of course, YMMV, does replicating the Ikea experience make MySQL more attractive to anyone?
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I'm a PostgreSQL fanboy, but I hope these guys pull it off. A lot of poeple don't realize that what's good for one open source project is good for all of us (historical emotional baggage aside).
The 5.0 release looks to be the biggest in the history of the database. I say good luck to them. Has anybody played around with their functions implmentations?
Unlike Nintendo, I think the MySQL people have a point though. You wouldn't want a $100k Oracle DB for a website that can be handled by $5k of white boxes running MySQL, just like you probably wouldn't expect a stuck-up billion dollar business to use an open source DB.
... and it will be pain in the ass to set up?
If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion.
True, but you don't want to be the one who has to wank off the orang-utan either.
Come to think about it, in light of MySQL's recent partnership with SCO this may not be a bad analogy after all...
I would search through benchmarks and wonder, "What kind of database defines me as a person?" We used to read pornography. Now it was debug prints. I had it all. Even the opteron optimized version that can take over 2Gb / process, but it still maxes at 4Gb due to 32bit pointers - proof it were crafted by the honest, simple, hard-working indigenous peoples of wherever. I am Jack's wasted memory.
Wow, what a dumb, dumb statement.
With all the ground work that MySQL has made, it is starting to be seriously considered an enterprise grade system. I can just see managers using some of these quotes to show that it's really just a toy, not a real DB like "Oracle." Would have been better just to say nothing.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
"It's realizing that simplicity does not mean a lack of sophistication," he added, noting that while some competitors might like to boast about 3,500 settable database parameters, MySQL would rather offer 35 settable parameters and hide the complexity from the end user.
If MySQL is the Ikea of DB market, does this mean they will start using Pictograms in their read me files?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"Enjoy your affordable Swedish crap." - Robot from Pi-kea (4ACV04 - Less Than Hero)
(robot limps off with one wheel missing and cabinet door hanging open)
music lover since 1969
Expensive, hard to setup, crumbles after a couple of years?
Nice troll, but I think you meant 'everywhere' not 'everyone'. But I really don't get what they mean by the 'Ikea of databases'. Does that mean it is over priced, stupid looking and meant for people with more dollars than cents?
That's something of a straw man argument; I don't see sort of comments modded very high, probably because plenty of mods have had to deal with mysql in the business world, and the rest have seen enough critical commentary over the last few years to know not to drink the kool-aid.
I saw lots of posts modded high mentioning all of MySQL's various critical flaws, as well as a number of posts mentioning PostgreSQL is better (a number explaining for non-DBAs why, say, things like transactions are important), maybe how the author moved to PostgreSQL and likes it better...but I can't ever remember having seen a single post saying "I used PostgreSQL and went to MySQL", except by people with the vocabulary and English skills of a 16 year old, think transactions are for wussies, are impressed at how fast MySQL handles simple queries on small datasets, and like that they don't have to worry about case sensitivity in their queries.
The most poignant comment I saw said that while everyone else had forged ahead, MySQL was just catching up to "state of the art" half a decade ago or more. We're not really talking luxury features- more "features a proper database should have".
I don't have the link to the story handy, but it was just yesterday, I believe. I strongly encourage anyone who hasn't read that thread to do so now.
Please help metamoderate.
Why all these crappy slashdot posts about MySQL we have been seen lately? They speak as if MySQL where an uncontested champion in the free-software database arena. This is far from true. Many articles doesn't even mention PostreSQL. Many of them says "Now MySQL is a big player because it's got... transactions" (!).
I think there's interest here in building up the idea that MySQL is important. There's currently no reason to use MySQL, because other products already do what it does and better.
Have you actually performed side-by-side comparisons using your own data? I have on many projects. Some are faster in Postgres. Some are faster in MySQL. Guess which one I use? Both. I use Postgres when it is faster. I use MySQL when it is faster. I refuse to be a blind moron like so many on Slashdot: Postgres is best. No, MySQL is best. Who cares - does it run Linux? No, Debian. That is Linux. I use BSD! Who cares, we're here to bash Windows!!!
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
That just proves to me that he completely understands the user space of MySQL.
Thousands of webmasters and home-based coders don't want a competitor to Oracle, we want something that gets he job done quickly, efficiently and affordably.
This idea that every product has to become a behemoth and compete for world domination is the stake through the heart of many a project. Being content with distributing in bulk to an extremely thankful user-base is what it's all about as far as I'm concerned with MySQL. This ensures that most open-source projects will continue to be MySQL oriented, LAMP will continue to dominate the OSS Content Management Services market, and for those that determine it's just not "good enough" for what they want to do there are plenty of alernatives to expand your feature set.
K.I.S.S. is what MySQL has always been about, and I give the guy props for admitting they'll never have the desire nor ability to compete with Oracle.
If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
We have some Ikea bookshelves, and the design is a little questionable, but my desk is fantastic. I had a great experience at the store itself.
On a final, slightly flamebait note, my MySQL experience has none of those characteristics :P
If you're happy with MySQL than great.
Its offered at most ASP's for next to nothing.
But just to let you know PostgreSQL 8.x now offers a native build for Windows - and is extremely powerful.
It's not the PG installer, it's the fact that Windows is now part of the official release that matters.
Still, though, mindshare is a considerable issue. There's a lot more people familiar with MySQL admin and it's quirks than Postgres. And, a lot of F/OSS uses MySQL as a data store by default. While it is not uncommon to have both PG and MySQL as a choice, if there is only one choice out of the two it is more often MySQL than PG, although counterexamples are sure to exist.
It will be interesting to see how these two projects evolve with respect to each other and how they end up positioned in a few years, now that a lot of the "first cut" elimination criteria have been eliminated (e.g. no subqueries/triggers for MySQL, no official Windows support for Postgres).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Windows sucks !
The IKEA of the database market, way to overpriced and the stability is pretty much the same (aka falls apart under heavy load) The only thing missing is polish programmers and that the customer has to plug the db together them/theirselfs...
Agreed. The installer and releases for windows are excellent, too, in my opinion. Combine that with the free version of http://www.sqlmanagner.net/ and Im one happy camper. I've ditched SQL Server for my own projects and have been happily using Postgresql on Linux and windows. Awesome product, IMHO, especially since the 8.0 release!!
Have a Happy.
People dig Scandinavian stuff. Everyone overpays for Haagen-Daas because it sounds like its a Viking snowcone or something.
MySQL should rename itself to some trendy nordic name. Some schmuck would probably pay more for it than Oracle or DB2
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
You are not your relational database!
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
This is an attitude that Linux enthusiasts could learn from. Stop worrying about taking on Microsoft and building a system that can convert everyone, and focus on building something that just works really well for the people that actually use it.
No surprise you end up wondering where your data went !
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Ahh... c'mon. Some of their stuff is expensive - check out the kitchens next time your in the store. I can't see a college student spending that kind of money.
Bingo. I couldn't agree with you more. MySQL is fairly lightweight, easy to use for many newbies, and provides some pretty advanced features for most tasks. It has its quirks to be careful of, but ultimately does its job as a DBMS. MySQL is extremely quick on the read, but suffers from locking issues and concurrency issues on the write. So it's fantastic for the Web- which is why you see it so often on hosting providers and other similar providers- it's quick to put Web content into. It's quick to hold userIDs/passwords that aren't updated frequently. It's quick in anything where reads are heavy and writes are sparse. Service providers like it because it's not too resource intensive for read-heavy uses (web sites) and it has a great user model (store users in a database, provide per-database permissions and hide all other customers from seeing other people's databases) for many-user systems.
PostgreSQL does a fantastic job with sites needing more complexity. If you need to start with transactions, need good read/write performance, and feel that data integrity is key (generally things dealing with dollars, accounting systems, online applications, booking systems, etc) then of course the way to go really is PostgreSQL if supported. If it's not (as it is with many hosts), there's always some MySQL transactional support with row-level locking, but it almost seems like a hack. (as a note, PGSQL8.1Beta2 provides support for 'roles', but to my knowledge still doesn't hide other people's databases).
Anyway- Each has it's ups and downs. Service providers love MySQL because it's fast, cheap, easy, and keeps users seperate. PostgreSQL I've seen abused a bit too much for things it's not to be used for, and that has a huge performance hit. Why the bickering? Everyone thinks their tool is bigger
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
- Schloönge
- Loob
- Vügeena
Ad nauseum...blog |
So I guess this would make Microsoft SQL Server the Wal-Mart of Databases.
It's the one a lot of people go to because they can't be bothered to shop around.
(Please note, the above is intended as humor. I earn my living working with SQL Server, and happen to think it's a fine product, but there are a lot of products that use it because it's Microsoft and for no other reason.)
Of course, all this begs the question, is Oracle the Target or the Sears of Databases?
The Sears hardware and appliance lines make me suspect Oracle is the Sears, but Target is bigger than Sears, which would reflect Oracle's install base better.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Now that Postgres has a pretty easy to use Windows installer, the benefits of MySQL are gone (though it befuddles me that *Windows*, of all things is what made MySQL successful in the first place).
The obvious counter argument is now that MySQL 5.0 supports strict data integrity, stored procedures, triggers, cursors, information schema, and database links, the benefits of Postres are gone.
But that too would be an oversimplification. Really, they're both excellent products, and which one you use is a matter of buisness needs and personal preference.
UPDETE TEBLE SET Cuoontry = 'Sveden' VHERE Neme-a = 'Svedeesh Cheff';
does he mean because of important features and tools missing or what?
If speed is your only criteria about what database is best, you should probably use SQLite. The last time they benchmarked its speed, it was significantly faster than both MySQL and PostgreSQL.
But the real point of this post is that making speed your only criteria does make you sound like a blind moron. A database is much more than its speed characteristics. Other considerations are: quality of documentation, richness of data types, SQL features supported, options for locking and concurrency, options for writing procedures in the database, facilities for partitioning and controlling the growth of the data store, and much more.
If these are not considerations for you, you are probably working on toy problems that would work just fine with SQLite.
So, if you INSERT INTO "table" ('object') VALUES ('water'); in a MySQL table, the database completely disintegrates?
HitScan
If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion.
You also don't want to be the one who has to clean up after the elephants, if you know what I mean.
it makes little sense for MySQL to be going after Oracle directly. They have little or no street cred in oracle's markets and they can't compete on features or quality.
Instead, it makes sense for them to continue to gobble up the low end marketshare while improving their product. Over the years, mysql meets more and more of the needs of Oracle users. Companies like oracle need to constantly climb the feature ladder to distinguish their high end product from MySQL's low end offerings. Without a substantial innovation from Oracle, MySQL eventually matches them on features and quality, gains the requisite street cred, and it's bye bye oracle as we know it today.
Maybe this is what Open Office and other groups should be doing. Don't target the central corporate workspace. Go after the adhoc environments: home users, small businesses, cash strapped schools. Improve the product until it is feature competitive with Office, get the requisite street cred, and then take the traditional MS Office marketshare.
CEO Marten Mickos was diagnosed with an advanced case of metaphoritis.
Well, it *does* eat every resource in sight...
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
MySQL does what it does well, and doesn't pretend to do what it doesn't do.
As a flexible but quirky set of persistent array extensions for most known programming languages, including the Three P's, it works really well. Unfortunately, the fact that it uses a bastardised dialect of SQL has led people to mistake it for a relational database management system.
MySQL makes it easy to write web pages with changeable content {such as message boards, diaries, online auctions and personal rant sites}; and with the addition of phpmyadmin, it even becomes a kind of MS-access replacement. You will have to do a lot more work in the application layer if you want to emulate stored procedures and triggers, or if you don't want to run afoul of graceful degradation. But in the 90% of cases where you don't need SPs and triggers, and where you'd rather let a few characters go missing than seize up with a fatal error, it performs just fine. And because it uses SQL {albeit with a broad regional accent}, it can provide a n00b with a sort of gentle introduction to real databases.
The bottom line is, you can't expect to tow a four-berth trailer round the twisty mountain roads with a one-litre Ford Fiesta. But for someone who just wants to drop the kids off at school and then nip into town to buy another pair of shoes, a 4x4 with a three litre engine and six gears is overkill. And you don't see many high performance sports cars with L-plates either.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I thought IKEA was the Oracle of furniture stores.
Edith Keeler Must Die
So, here's the good thing about having parents in the furniture business -- I've heard all about Ikea's business model, in which they actually sell crap furiture for cheap with the hope/understanding that people will redecorate their houses *every year*.
So what MySQL is saying is that we'll want to do the same thing? Rebuild our dbs completely every year, with new tables, blah blah?
I don't care if MySQL is VHS compared to the postgres beta max... I'm sick and tired of people coming along and and trying to convert people to whatever their favourite technology is like it's the one true religion.
Give it up... I don't care if you like PG, Ruby on Rails or stink on shit for that matter. I'll use what I feel is right for my projects. The only thing this kind of "evangelism" generates is animosity towards whatever product/technology/turd you're pushing on others.
BlackNova Traders
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Thanks for the advice. I was not aware that PostressSQL was available for Windows. So, what are the differences in how you install/configure/setup PostgressSQL vs MySQL? I really haven't worked with either. I downloaded MySQL a while back having never used it before and spent about two hours and it didn't seem anywhere near as easy to get going as MS SQL Server so I just gave up. But I'd really love to use one of the two. Could you briefly educate me on the main tradeoffs for each?
Honestly it seems to me that PostresSQL would be a better choice but I'm just wondering why more people don't see that.
Thanks in advance.
SQLite is not as fast as MySQL for anything I've tried it on, especially simple read/write access. The test you're linking to is ancient.
If you use InnoDB tables with MySQL, it doesn't have the locking issues you refer to. It uses the same MVCC locking approach that PostgreSQL and Oracle use.
Why?
IKEA is the world's largest furniture seller and makes much more money than any of the more upmarket furniture sellers.
Something you generally learn pretty quickly in IT (or should) is that you make what the customer wants - no point building a Rolls Royce if the customer wants something cheap to get the shops and back.
Did you do real-world tests or did you just run a few queries and pull out a stopwatch?
Did you test when data was in the buffer or when the data was clean? Do you even know how to flush the buffer on both databases?
One thing I've noticed consistently is that MySQL begins to slow down as there are more processes running. That's why I never use it for the backend of a website.
Compared to PostgreSQL, which, with only 1 or 2 processes is slower than MySQL, but it begins to shine as your load approaches reality. It also does tremendously well if it is overburdened. I haven't seen a system running PostgreSQL brown out due to overload. I think it's sweet spot is consuming about 75% of your box's resources.
I can't think of a role where I would use MySQL at all.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
coz he's seen Larry go crazy buying companies liek mad. He's the one who wait till the Lion dies of hunger. But I'm sure Larry ain't no fool. MySQL wil be the Oracle Lite version very soon!
Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
...MyKEA?
As an experienced web developer, and having extensive experience with both databases, the "quirks" in MySQL quickly become unbearable. What do you mean my backup wasn't consistent? What do you mean the data I just incremented one operation ago is back to its old value? Why, when I clear the table, do I get old ids that should now be bad?
The fact that PostgreSQL does it right, and does it the way you expect it to be done, and does it better, means that I choose it every time. The fact that only PostgreSQL cares about backing up your data consistently, providing a consistent transaction, and allows you to do row-level locking, means that only it is up to the task you will inevitable have for it.
As you grow and understand what databases really are, you will begin demanding it do more work for you. With MySQL, you can't grow. With PostgreSQL, you can grow as much as you like.
I've never understood the complexity argument. Apparently, you don't need transactions and sequences and consistent backups if your just doing something simple. I thought things should _just work_ for beginners. Why are you suggesting something that _doesn't just work_ for beginners?
Question: Do you have data? Answer: Yes. Suggestion: Since you have data, you need to use PostgreSQL.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
We'll need to hire the Swedish Chef to figure out what the hell everything means now.
Actually the windows performance of postgres is pretty up to par to the unix performance you have to tweak the settings like you have to do it in unix (read the various postgres performance guides). The performance used to be bad, but not anymore, since the cygwin layer has been dropped.
Actually, I built postgres on cygwin for a friend back in 1999 and even then it wasn't too bad (for his small database (~5000 products, ~300 customers)).
I can't see any reason why people would use MySQL even for small single access databases, Berkley DB is faster and SQLLite can be faster and is much better, and for everything else there's PostgreSQL. I suppose there's a fair amount of money invested in newbie HOWTO's for MySQL and that can be the only reason for people (and many ISP's) to even bother installing MySQL.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
you can save a bundle if your time is not that valuable
:)
I can't speak for everything IKEA sells, but for a lot of things, the $100 (or more) I saved is more than worth the 15 minutes it took me to assemble the thing.
Kinda like Linux. Personally, the 2 or 3 extra hours I might spend fussing with Linux is still worth the $300 saved on a Windows license.
To most people I know, $100/hour or more is a damn good wage
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
The obvious counter argument is now that MySQL 5.0 supports strict data integrity, stored procedures, triggers, cursors, information schema, and database links, the benefits of Postres are gone.
Except that these features have been in Postres for a longer period of time and therefore have seen more stress testing. (Nothing against MySQL's QA.)
Right... Around this enterprise, we like strict ACID, Nested queries, Standard SQL syntax and semantics, and 24/7/365 availability. On mature systems, not the latest development release. Without having to carefully choose our table types.
Does this mean that MySQL will become easily breakable like its cheap furniture counterpart, and that Craigslist will be inundated with used and crappy MySQL databases?
Perhaps this also means that MySQL will not handle data moves very well, and becoming rickety over time.
Maybe it will baby-sit your children in a virtual ball bin. (perhaps the only perk of IKEA).
Poor analogy. They should really work with a PR agency before they associate their name with a place that harbors inferior quality merchandise.
Despite the risk of sounding like a religious fanatic: Amen!
I've never seen the commercial. Every gay guy that I know/associate with shops Ikea. It's a common joke among them (my group of peers, gay and straight alike). I'll inform them of your having taken offense to it on their behalf, I'm sure they'll feel that the world is a much safer place for it. And please, waste some more of your precious karma on me.
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2005_oct/inn o.html
Perhaps MySQL is saying "We aren't competing with Oracle" because Oracle has MySQL in a difficult position. Oracle just purchased InnoBase, the makers of InnoDB. They get to "renegotiate" the terms next year. MySQL may end up having to drop the InnoDB storage engine, and transactions along with it. After all, it's Oracle's option.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Here's the link for those interested:
n o.html
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2005_oct/in
The license for InnoDB is up for renewel next year... guess that means that Oracle has a very strong position against MySQL. Maybe that's why MySQL is issuing press releases saying that they're not a competitor. MySQL may have to actually drop the InnoDB storage engine -- at Oracle's discretion.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Wow, I can't believe some idiot modded your post as flamebait. It seems well thought out and truthful.
I'd just like to point out that the performance of a database when handling only one user or running one batch file is generally considered uninteresting. It's how it behaves when 100, 1000, or 10000 people are hitting it at once that counts. And it's ability to be placed on bigger, faster hardware to handle load.
In this category, MySQL quickly falls behind. PostgreSQL fairs quite a bit better, and Oracle rules the roost. This from an ardent PostgreSQL supporter, who thinks that, as time approaches infinity, PostgreSQL's performance will surpass Oracle's.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
I'm here. What to you want? :)
That would make it really awkward for MySQL AB to say anything to the effect that they intended to somehow compete with Oracle. It would presumably be grounds for terminating the ability for MySQL AB to continue to sell their product with a transactional engine...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
If only I didn't have to spend 45 minutes stuck in traffic and hiking 1/2 mile across the parking lot to get them.
Come to think of that, it's just like MySQL?
Now, when will I see it in the frozen food section at Safeway?
What was the question?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
subj.
Practical Semantic Web Log
First of all, if you are running your high-load database on Windows, you are screwed regardless of which RDBMS you use (reasons have to do with FSYNC behavior). Most people want PostgreSQL on Windows for development and it is quite good for that. If you only run PostgreSQL on your Windows box, then you can make it work well. However, again, I don't recommend it for I/O specific reasons.
There are some load-sensitive performance issues in PostgreSQL 8.0 on Windows, but many of these have been fixed in 8.1 beta.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I was not aware that PostressSQL was available for Windows. So, what are the differences in how you install/configure/setup PostgressSQL vs MySQL?
In both cases, you run a Windows Installer? The current installer project for PostgreSQL also includes PGAdmin III (a GUI admin tool).
Now, as for configuration, you should take a look at a couple of things:
1) PostgreSQL uses a set of text-based configuration files (pg_hba.conf and postgresql.conf) and it is worth being familiar with these though for development use the default settings are probably OK.
2) You will want to become familiar with server variables and query plans if you want to do performance tuning.
3) User rights maintenance is fundamentally different in MySQL, PostgreSQL 8.0 and PostgreSQL 8.1 Beta.
** MySQL has users, no groups
** PG 8.0 has users and groups, but no nested groups
** PG 8.1 beta has users and groups as instances of nestable roles.
Also, take a look at my web site White Papers Section for a paper on migrating from MySQL to PostgreSQL.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
But probably not too many concurrent connections....
That was the biggest limitation of the Cygwin builds.
As for the WIndows builds of PG8, it is more scalable but still has some performance issues under high load that are mostly resolved in Pg 8.1 beta, but I would still stear away from Windows for production databases because of issues in how FSYNC works. When I worked at Microsoft, I saw so many more cases of SQL Server db corruption based on power outages than I have ever seen on the PostgreSQL forums (every case in the PostgreSQL forums I have seen has been due to bad hardware).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Yeah, not too many concurrent connections. Fortunately I convinced him to scrounge up a used Pentium to run it on (he was a small independant retailer, and used it for his till & special orders tracking).
I believe they think more in terms of what kind of money it has made it's creator. Ingvar Kamprad is now one of the riches men alive.
(And there are many reasons, one of them is that we live in a consumerist society where most young people don't actually want to inherit their parents furniture (which their parents, having a home of their own and a great many years of expected lifespan ahead of them, need for themselves anyway), or even use the furniture they bought themselves 10+ years ago. Furniture are now disposable fashion/lifestyle items.)
I shop at IKEA because there I pay about one fourth of what I would do in a proper furniture store, I presently have limited funds, and I don't necessarily see myself using the same furniture in 15 years. That said, their sofas just look too cheap to bear.
-
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
This is awesome! Thanks for the advice!