Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Releases MySQL Enhancements

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the what-an-exciting-morning-this-isn't dept.

An anonymous reader noted that "Google has released its internally developed enhancements to MySQL to the open source community this week. Changes include improvements in replication, high availability configuration, and performance." It'll be interesting to see if the changes they made are of interest to other places using MySQL.

5 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. The patch... by dfdashh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wiki for the patch here: http://code.google.com/p/google-mysql-tools/wiki/M ysql4Patches

    --
    df -h /my/head
  2. Re:Wont be included in MYSQL... by Albanach · · Score: 5, Informative

    MySQL could license the code for distribution. Equally Google could submit the code to MySQL using their existing mecanism for code contributions and transfer copyright to MySQL.

    To suggest that the code can't be included because someone else owns copyright is just wrong - MySQL didn't develop the Innodb stuff, they license it. They could do the same here.

  3. Re:so... by Matje · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wouldn't be so sure: the mysql administrator is not always able to restore a backup correctly. you are well advised to restore backups through the command line. it is also impossible (at least last time I checked) to automatically include all databases in a scheduled backup. You can only select the databases that are present at the time you schedule the backup.

    furthermore, the mysql query browser screws up when you paste a query containing tabs. this particular bug was reported to mysql over a year ago. it was somewhat fixed, but not really.

    I really like mysql but claiming that the admin is better than sql server is well, pushing it.

  4. Re:InnoDB...? by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Umm, InnoDB is an engine for MySQL, they are still using MySQL. They just said they use the InnoDB engine exclusively rather than the other engines such as MyISAM. They probably never used MyISAM since it doesn't have foreign keys or transactions. No respected DBA would ever use MyISAM.

    Where did I say InnoDB wasn't MySQL ..? And no, they used MyISAM initially, you can check the comments after their original post.

    In fact the irony in your post is big, as the original post addresses just people like you who are very quick to decide what a "respected DBA" would do, or not (versus reality).

    I'll quote one of the Google devs answering questions about it:

    Q: holy crap, you ran adwords on a transactionless database?

    A: Yep.

    Q: you have balls. and you're lucky as hell nothing (else) went wrong.

    A: Nope. Luck had nothing to do with it. If you don't have transactions you just roll your own. It's actually not hard at all.

    Bottom line is, you use transactions as it easier to retain data integrity and makes for simpler code. You don't use transactions to be "respected DBA". Whatever reasons they had to use MyISAM was probably sound, but after certain level of sophistication, they switched to InnoDB to make things easier to manage.

  5. Re:Wont be included in MYSQL... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you look at the subversion repository, they also have patches for MySQL 5. It seems as though they are not going to "release" those patches until they are feature-equivalent to the MySQL 4 patches:

    These will have the same functionality as the MySQL 4 patches. Unfortunately, only some of the features have been ported. This will be updated when the patches have equivalent functionality.
    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.