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."
"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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
It's kdawson. 5 time winner of the "Worst Slashdot Editor of All Time" award.
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*
5 times today ... or possibly 6. depends how many articles he posts.