Slashdot Mirror
MySQL to Get Injection of Google Code
inkslinger77 writes to mention that MySQL has published their software roadmap out through 2009 and it includes an injection of code from Google. Google remains relatively secretive about how their systems work but they are one of the largest users of MySQL. Earlier this year Google signed a Contributor License Agreement which provides a framework for them to contribute code to MySQL. "The search company has done a lot of work customizing MySQL to meet its special needs, which include better database replication, and tools to monitor a high volume of database instances, Axmark said in an interview at MySQL's user conference in Paris. MySQL will include some of those capabilities in future versions of its database, probably in point upgrades to MySQL 6.0, which is scheduled for general availability in late 2008, Axmark said."
Somehow when I put "SQL" and "injection" together, I don't like the result...
Well, except for when it involves Little Bobby Tables...
Bow-ties are cool.
Eat that, Oracle.
Seriously the database layer is being commoditized, and MySQL and PostgreSQL are leading the way.
My only question, was Google required to disclose these changes, or are they just doing the right thing (again)?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Probably because it's a decently-performing ISAM engine with builtin replication. It's not terribly safe (index file integrity is terribly brittle) or smart (it only recently learned there isn't such a date as Feb 30), but you can still at least write ad hoc queries to your tabular data. I doubt Google is using it for HR or CRM.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
I prefer PostgreSQL but MySQL isn't crappy.
For years MySQL offered better write a few read a lot databases than PostgreSQL. It may still offer better performance for those types of operations. That is the way most websites used MySQL. It is a good tool for some applications. Slashdot is one of them.
Yes I think PostgreSQL is better but MySQL isn't crappy.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I prefer Postgres to MySQL. I wonder whether these MySQL revisions will be generic enough to use to improve Postgres.
I also wish these two databases interoperated more. I'd like to use a MySQL proxy to my Postgres server, so apps depending on MySQL could still work, but use Postgres to actually process the data (or just serve as a master DB for replication). Porting apps between DBs, and huge projects to join across different apps' tables in different types of DB servers should be ancient history. Mixed DB-type clusters might not be high performance, but they'd get the iterative development started, after which performance could be just an optimization, which is the right way to do it anyway.
--
make install -not war
Why on earth would you compare MySQL with Access? I'm more of a Postgres guy myself but even Mysql deserves better than that.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
Access isn't "competing" in the same area as MySQL though, SQL Server Express is. MS Access would be more competing with SQLite i beleive (which I never used, so don't quote me, but I beleive that is a less server-centric open source DB?).
JET (Access' database engine) is more of a data storage engine with SQL support than an RDBMS, which MySQL is (which could have been debatable until v.5 I guess, hehehe )
Mysql 5.1 has been in preproduction since November 2005 and still isn't available as a GA release (aka don't use it in production). Are they sure they can get a 6.0 GA release out by next fall?
This is really good of Google to contribute this back, I'm just wondering how long it will be before we all can utilize their changes. I hate to see the code stay stuck in the devel cycle for three years when Goggle is using it to their advantage right now at this very moment.
They need to add a GOOGLE function to allow queries to be searched nicer.
SELECT * FROM articles WHERE GOOGLE('boobies');
something similar might be available but it is a PITA to list the fields to search and specify the operators etc
liqbase
MySQL cannot enforce foreign keys constraints on MyISAM tables. It 'kinda' can on Innodb tables.
Having them and enforcing them so they are actually useful are 2 different things.
And if you'd bother to RTFA, you would see that MySQL is moving to away from Innodb to 'falcon'. "but some InnoDB features, like foreign key support and full-text indexing, won't be supported until MySQL 6.1.".
So MySQL is moving away from the only table types that can actually 'kinda' enforce the use foreign keys at all.
I think that would make you the douche.
That's like saying PCs are toys, because banks use mainframes to handle your credit card transactions.
That a device or program isn't suited for a certain task doesn't mean it's a toy.
Once this stabilizes, I'll probably be using it. It's nice to see such a direct impact on my work from their contributions. Thanks guys!
You drank my drink, you drunk!
It's a non-server public domain database library. Yes, really public domain. Its databases live in files and there's no server component whatsoever; it's intended for use by a single application (although it supports file locking so that multiple processes can access the same database).
I use it in one of my apps. It's awesome. It's tiny (about 300kB), it's simple (no messing about with starting servers), it's blazing fast (for some tasks, it's up to an order of magnitude faster than PostgreSQL or MySQL --- for others, it's slower, though: benchmarks). More and more programs are starting to use it simply as a document store. It's great.
If you find yourself wanting to use SQL in a situation where only a small number of apps at a time are going to want access, or even if you just want to teach yourself SQL (it's got an excellent command line shell), do check it out.
Actually, there are several cases where you may think that MySQL has foreign keys when it doesn't. So the support of foreign keys is not entirely complete.
;-) ), you don't get foreign key enforcement. No warning. just no enforcement.
If innodb is not installed, you get a MyISAM table without the foriegn key enforcement and not even a warning is given on table creation (you do get a warning when you insert, but the application is unlikely to be watching).
CREATE TABLE table2 (
id int autoincrement primary key,
foreign_id int references table1(id),
test text
) type=innodb;
CREATE TABLE table2 (
id int autoincrement primary key,
foreign_id int,
test text,
FOREIGN KEY foreign_id REFERENCES table1(id)
) type=innodb;
In one of the above examples (won't say which one
Yes, MySQL has foriegn keys. It doesn't have them 100% but it does have them.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP