MySQL 5.0 Now Available for Production Use

chicagoan writes "MySQL AB today announced the general availability of MySQL 5.0, the most significant product upgrade in the company's ten-year history. The major new version delivers advanced SQL standard-compliant features such as stored procedures, triggers, views & new pluggable storage engines. Over 30 enterprise platform and tool vendors have also expressed enthusiastic support for the new release of the world's most popular open source database."

Comments

stored procs and triggers, finally

[cerelib]

I have always been amazed thy MySQL has been able to gain the popularity it has without features like stored procs and triggers.

Re:stored procs and triggers, finally

[SpaceLifeForm]

And if the database is not properly protected with constraints, you can screw up the database. And if the schema has to change, we have to hunt down your code and make changes there.

The best way to manage a database is to only allow applications to modify the database via stored procedures. You'll have far fewer problems that way.

Re:stored procs and triggers, finally

[xelah]

That's an excellent argument for having a layer between applications and the data. Stored procedures are certainly a way to achieve this, but they aren't the only way to achieve it. Is a bunch of, say, Java stored procedures all that different to, say, a Java server which exposes application domain methods via CORBA or J2EE (or whatever), is the only way for the rest of your system to get at the database and contains all of the queries all that different? Not really - and the second method has some advantages (like allowing you to run many copies across many computers). IMHO you really do have to think about your system architecture and it's requirements before making a decision like 'everything goes through SPs'.

Re:stored procs and triggers, finally

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, how can you say that ?

One of the challenges of MySQL 5 was precisely to get closer to the SQL:2003 standard. And it did.
Consider the MySQL stored procedures for example : their syntax is probably one of the most respectful of the norm today. And that effort was also made for all the other new funcionality of MySQL 5.

Now since you're talking about the past flaws of MySQL, you shouldn't confuse the absence of a functionality with the proprietary implementation of that functionality.
It's true that until 2 years ago or so MySQL didn't support UNION but when it did it was in a standard-compliant way. But as far as I know MySQL has never had such a proprietary approach as the one Oracle had to outer join syntax for years for instance.

Concerning the LIMIT statement, it is proprietary syntax because there is no equivalent for it in the SQL standard ! By the way you won't find two RDBMS that implement it the same way...

So don't tell us MySQL is one of the less standard-respectful databases because it's just not true. It might not be the most SQL standard-compliant because it lacks standard functionality but what is implemented is fairly normative.
And don't come arguing that MySQL should implement "all of the standard or none of it" because you know pretty well it is not possible for a young RDBMS like this...

Well done MySQL AB

[iBod]

It's not the fanciest, or the fastest, but it's ubiquitous and free!

I for one have found it invaluable on many projects where a full-featured, high-capacity RDBMS would have been more trouble and expense than it was worth.

Props to MySQL!

Well this is neat

[lewp]

No matter if you're a MySQL supporter or someone who thinks that everyone should use a "real" RDBMS, having all these new features available to MySQL developers is a good thing. There's quite a few apps, I'm sure, that don't use these features in databases where they're available simply because they're aiming for the lowest common denominator that was MySQL's feature set.

Anyway, not trying to start an argument about the relative merits of any particular RDBMS, but this is a good thing all the way around. I look forward to taking it for a spin.

Re:no x.0 for me...

[sethadam1]

I never get the .0 release of anything ... And I've been wanting to try out Postgres anyway...

What's the purpose of posting something like this? I am not trolling, I'm just curious why everytime there's a MySQL thread, someone has to chime in about why they won't use it and why Postgres is better. What is the motivation to visit a thread solely to post something negative. Seriously, what is wrong with internet culture?

So I'm not completely off topic, I read the feature list, and this thing looks fantastic. Views, triggers, sp's, a new data type, BIT, for storing Booleans, which MSSQL has and is AWESOME. You may not want to try it, but some of us are excited to get our hands in it and have been waiting for the first "blessed" release!

Re:Why MySQL is popular

[lukej]

I think I am pretty agnostic about the whole Postgres/Mysql love affair. But I do find amusement in the 'personalities' of those supporting both sides.

Point #3;I always like the standards = portable argument. Reality check:

a> if somebody writes a huge DB app, standards compliant or not, their going to stick with their base DB
b> if it is a small DB app, then it's trivial to rewrite if you do want to migrate DBs

With all my Postgres and Mysql based stuff, I've never rewritten one for the other. Often times I've upgrade the DB or it's host machine. But, with both Postgres Mysql, performance for my (granted, small) DBs is fine with both, the DBs are free, and installing is simple.

I just don't think DB migration takes place often, even if you can find two compliant DBs!