Slashdot Mirror
First MySQL 5.5 Beta Released
joabj writes "While MySQL is the subject of much high-profile wrangling between the EU and Oracle (and the MySQL creator himself), the MySQL developers have been quietly moving the widely-used database software forward. The new beta version of MySQL, the first publicly available, features such improvements as near-asynchronous replication and more options for partitioning. A new release model has been enacted as well, bequeathing this version the title of 'MySQL Server 5.5.0-m2.' Downloads here."
Downloads are not here. Might try actually putting a full URL in there instead of MySQLServer5.5.0-m2
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
You, sir, fail it.
"near-asynchronous replication" is wrong, should be "semi-synchronous replication" as stated in the article. Striving for almost having replication asynchronous sounds like a poor implementation of synchronous replication :)
FTA:
MySQL 5.5 will also support the ANSI/ISO SQL standard method of programmatically returning errors inside SQL procedures, called Signal/Resignal, which some users have called for.
This was never really an issue, because MySQL always had it's way of preforming whatever you needed it to do, but I used it in Oracle and it really does make a difference. Here's a link that will show you a bit of what it does, for those who don't know.
All in all, I'm glad things are moving forward. Still not the forerunner but still in the game.
Maybe it's just me, but I find 'Psotgres' to be far lacking compared to mysql. Ease of use also counts for something when working with the masses...and yes I am making fun of your inability to spell the very product you're trying to troll with. Fun times.
Yes, around version 4.0
The last two times I tested it for a true shared-nothing HA cluster, NDBCLUSTER failed miserably without a lot of tweaking. The optimizer was buggy to the point of being broken. And basically the response I got from MySQL AB at the time was, "If you want to use NDBCLUSTER, you'd better get the Enterprise Support Package". After pricing out what it would cost in support from MySQL AB AND the cost of having to go through and rewrite a bunch of our code to optimize it, it was cheaper to buy DB2.
Company I work for now uses PostgreSQL for main product lines. But two of their package are third party and use MySQL including their billing system. It works, but as it stands right now, neither of those systems are being taxed on a Dual-Quad Core DB server with 12GB RAM. In fact, it barely runs at 5% of resource utilization. We still use MySQL for one of our website's CMS. And it does the job well.
MySQL works well up until you need more than one box. Replication can work in some circumstances, but as a HA solution, it looses any advantages it had in terms of cost vs. extremely proven and reliable systems.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
By that metric, MS Access wins every time...
Thank you for your helpful comments, Dr. Sokal. We'll be in touch when the committee has made a decision on whether or not to publish your paper.
I wonder how they came to select all of the features in this current build.
counts for something != counts for everything but nice try
Yeah, transactions. Those are a real bitch, aren't they? I mean, they get in the way all of the time, protecting your data's integrity. We can't fucking have atomicity. No fucking way. PostgreSQL totally lacks the random and unexpected data corruption that makes MySQL great.
And foreign key constraints! Stupid little motherfuckers, preventing arbitrary data entry and orphan records. In my MySQL database, I want to insert any sort of crap I feel like, even if it violates all sorts of constraints.
The worst, though, has to be all of the index types we have available. PostgreSQL gives so many, for all sorts of data. Fuck, nobody ever has to store, say, geospatial data and access it quickly. Never!
Oh, but don't forget the powerful PL/PgSQL language for writing functions. It's just fucking stupid to isolate frequently-used code in a single location. That might actually make testing and maintenance easy. That's a big No No in the MySQL world.
Fuck, I hate all of these low-end database features that PostgreSQL offers. It makes it so much more lacking compared to MySQL.
Yay, your UID isn't half mine :-)
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
I can't think of many criteria in which PostgreSQL is lacking compared to MySQL. In my experience, MySQL is "easier to use" only in that the default security configuration on some distribution packages is easier to understand.
Still no support for foreign keys in partitioned tables. Makes partitioning pretty much worthless in most real world deployments.
What ease of use issues? That hasn't been an issue in years. PostgreSQL is well supported even on Windows these days.
For the vast majority of users, PostgreSQL scales better, has far more features, supports far more PLs, is technically more advanced, has a vastly superior query optimizer, is more stable, is well supported, and doesn't have the politics surrounding it like MySQL does. Even better, it teaches proper ANSI SQL which carries over to any number of other engines, excepting MySQL.
Given there are no ease of use issues and all the above, why would any sane person care about MySQL.
Oh I don't have a strong opinion on which is better, I've used both effectively. I was just responding to the guy above who was claiming Access should win because your selection criteria was flawed.
Maybe it's just me, but I find 'Psotgres' to be far lacking compared to mysql.
Factually, its just you. The fact is, MySQL is horribly lacking compared to PostgreSQL. MySQL is constantly chasing PostgreSQL's feature set. That's the facts. No trolling required.
Why do you think so many PostgreSQL supports are so rabid about how inferior MySQL is in just about every metric that matters for a RDBMS? Its like constantly watching Pinto owners rave about how great their car is when for the same money they could have gotten just about anything else and been better off, not to mention safer.
There was a beta like 9 months ago, but no cigar. Where is the final release?
Because otherwise they'd have to admit that all their years diddling around with a toy database was all for naught?
If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*. So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster. Really depends on what you want to do with your data. No more one-size fits all db anymore. Even Oracle has different versions ( with a huge variance in price) for different use cases.
So depending on your use case, you can still make fun of it for not supporting many features, or for supporting too many features.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Just to wedge this in: Firebird users often feel the same way. Firebird 2.5 is now available as an official release candidate.
Yes, the database engine. Not the browser. *sigh*
Thank you, tears in eyes, coffee out of nose, sides aching, the whole works.
Read like a helpful tip from the pages of Viz. You're not Geordie by any chance are you ?
I am guessing you registered when you were 5.
I would bump this for humor if I could.
Not to refute everything you've said, but MySQL can do transactions, and can have spatial indexes.
5.5 Still Betaware? Will they label it with number 6 when it finally come out of beta closet? Well similar numbering scheme as Kernel had some time ago... but with MySQL it seems to be he major number that counts.
Because most web publishers are deployers, rather than developers, of web software. The overwhelming majority of this software is written in PHP and assumes the presence of MySQL. Even those packages that support other databases often treat them as second-class citizens; they tend to be much less developed and tested.
I am a sane person, and I care more about using the database that'll work best with the apps I want to use (such as phpBB), than I do about promoting tech for its own sake.
I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
The indexes only work on MyISAM. Who needed transactions anyway? Every feature MySQL lays claim to is always full of gotchas like this.
Never had to 'solve' data correction due to the non-acid compliance of the db I suppose? And what features exactly are you using from mysql that isn't in postgresql?
Hint: when someone has a UID that's half yours and you suspect someone is a cunt, it's probably you. Especially if you're German.
What if they simply bought their UID
Who would the cunt be then?
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Only if you're using innodb amiryte? MySQL is the first database language most poeple learn using phpmyadmin so they'll just use the default.
By that metric, MS Access wins every time...
very few people realize that when used correctly--that is, as a vb front-end for a sql server backend--nothing beats access for rad.
Is that supposed to be near-synchronous? What the hell is "near-asynchrynous"? I don't even see how "near-asynchronous" would be possible. If you aren't synchronous, you're asynchronous, and it's just a matter of how far away from synchronous you are. That's like saying "he's traveling at near-not-the-speed-of-light".
implementing that must've been a tough job
stop being a tool, it was obvious it was not his only criteria. And in any marketplace it is an important one that will gain more users.
Do I see netbsd high in the usage ranks?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Bequeath
Will
Everytime I see this debate on slashdot it invariably degenerates into claims of mysterious missing features (what are they?) or non-transactional characteristics of MyISAM. Too bad, because I'm genuinely interested in a good comparison. I use MySQL extensively today but have worked on both in the past.
Anyone still tempted to go with the "non-acid" argument... give it up, else risk looking ignorant or foolish. MySQL is designed to support many storage engines. Anyone using MySQL this past decade who cares about their data creates most of their tables as InnoDB tables. And InnoDB is a very very good storage engine, if it matters.
I may have to try postgresql myself, if only to get to the bottom of this. What doesn't it have that I sorely need? Perhaps nothing. Then again mysql isn't missing much, either, for our needs. Perhaps, in the end, this is more like comparing AMD to Intel--no clear winner.
Out of the box replication in PostgresSQL was a bit lacking, last I checked. MySQL replication seems to work well for smaller scale projects.
Sig it.
Okay I'll bite. I'm not familiar with postgresql versions since about 7.x.
From http://www.postgresql.org/about/:
Which of these are not also true of mysql? The InnoDB storage engine also has MVCC, snapshot recovery, hot backups, etc.
What are the compelling differences?
The last sentence: "Some general PostgreSQL limits". Compare it to MySQL's lists of caveats. You'll find what MySQL claims to support is often grotesquely crippled. Want full-text indexing? Hope you didn't also want transactions. Hope also you didn't want to tune the stopword selection process, override the tokenizer, add synonyms, or otherwise customize it. Want geospatial data? Again, forget transactions if you want to index it. Stored procedures? Don't even begin to look for an expressive procedure language.
Are you kidding me? With the crap they pulled with the buggy and rushed 5.1 release, I don't see our company touching any version > 5.0.x with a 10 foot pole anytime soon. Our production servers are still running 5.0.x, and that will remain the case for a long long time thanks to the garbage they've been tossing around.
MySQL already has perfect asynchronous master-slave replication through binary logging.
What's hard is synchronous replication it would be a very useful enhancement if 5.5 had a reliable synchronous replication option, and supported clustering, failover/hot-standby, and failed-node recovery/resynch.
stop being a tool, it was obvious it was not his only criteria. And in any marketplace it is an important one that will gain more users.
Do I see netbsd high in the usage ranks?
Actually I didn't think it was obvious.
As I read it the first guy was just saying he preferred mysql to PostreSQL and that one of the deciding factors in that decision was ease of use.
The second guy as I read it was trying to discount the original argument by showing that ease of use should not be considered because that means Access would win which we consider absurd knowing many of the weaknesses with Access.
I don't think that pointing out that that is absurd reasoning is "being a tool" but I am impressed with the way you somehow agreed with my original point while calling me a tool and being as abrasive as possible.
Actually, it's always the idiot who think UID matters. Always.
It's also the guy who tells stupid lies that he knows he can't suppport and throws tantrums when called out on them.
And no, the "Nuh-uh, it's the AC who's like totally a stalker 'n stuff" comeback isn't the withering retort you're trying to pretend it is. And yes, that IS what you were about to say.
It has working async (log shipping isn't synchronous) but it has lots of bugs that can jump up and bite you in the ass that haven't been fixed yet. Search the MySQL bug database for examples. It still requires you to stop your whole cluster and replicate the master to the slave to work. For large datasets this is unworkable if you need continuous uptime.
It's pretty good, and super easy to setup, but it's not perfect.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
It works fine, and I use it.. And no, you don't need to stop the master on a regular basis for any reason.
Clients that perform updates have to connect to master.
For select queries, use a load balancer that connects to the slaves.
When you are creating a new slave, you replicate it first, then add it to the load balanced cluster AFTER replication is proceeding.
The asynchronous nature has some drawbacks though, since your app can never really be 100% sure that what you see is the latest version of the database.
It helps if you record in-flight transactions and "hot" data using memcached, and consult the database for cold data.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, most desktop people who are just after ease of use end up using Excel :)
This is true; I actually thought about saying Excel instead of Access. I chose Access because it actually is a relational database.
When used with SharePoint, Access 2007/2010 is easier - SharePoint will automatically create an Access database using SharePoint lists/libraries as tables, and Access will synchronize the content. Setting up a custom SharePoint list (or customizing an existing one) isn't too difficult - certainly easier than creating a table in Access. This is perhaps one of the easiest ways to set up a database, albeit a rather limited one.
They aren't really intended to be used in this way, but SharePoint lists/libraries can form something that resembles a simple relational database.
Well, that's what you get for using a donkey instead of database.
What are the compelling differences?
Security. Scalability. And recently, raw performance with more much more room through to exist. Superior query plan general for non-trivial queries; which also goes to the first three items listed. Extensibility such that MySQL can't even be compared. Geospacial capabilities with indicies + ACID. PLs for stored procedures and a multitude of choices and capabilities. Real life deployments where ACID accounts; compared to MySQL where people generally use it as a large, non-ACID storage retrieval system where data inconsistencies are typically also allowed, rather than an ACID-compliant RDBMS.
In all seriousness, for the vast, vast majority of users, the only literal advantage MySQL has over PostgreSQL is DB upgrade paths, and even then, huge strides are being made on the PostgreSQL front. See PG Migrator. Huge improvements have been made since the 7.x days. See the docs for more info.