Slashdot Mirror
MariaDB 10 Released, Now With NoSQL Support
noahfecks (2379422) writes "Version 10 of the most famous fork of MySQL MariaDB has been released. Its developers said that is many times faster than MySQL, also claiming that its replications slaves are crash free. More details of this release can be found on the blog."
I've tried out MariaDB specifically, the Galera Cluster many times and found it to be very lacking. The default Debian repos just seem broken and have been for a long time according to the bug reports i've read. Apart from the broken packages the fact that the documentation is very lacking and dotted all over the place has put me off. After MariaDB I moved on to Percona's implementation which comes with working packages and good documentation.
www.hardwar.org - A remake of the old classic Hardwar
That's because Slashdot's MySQL replication slave crashed while replicating the sentence.
Ezekiel 23:20
One answer to your loaded question: Avoiding Oracle's unceasing commitment to thwarting advances in technology that are community-driven or otherwise unable to be monetized?
What does NoSQL mean for MariaDB? Without context it is just another buzz word.
The only thing I know about MariaDB is that it is a fork of MySQL created because Oracle is Evil.
Because Oracle owns MySQL.
The summary says the replication slaves are now crash free, but TFA says they are crash-safe. My database knowledge doesn't go very deep, but I think the latter means they won't lose data on crashes, not that they never crash.
It looks like it now has a schema-less (Key–value if I'm reading it right) mode as well as a method of dumping anything into said KV data store.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Mariadb, and other mysql spinoffs, have one key advantage over mysql....not owned by Oracle.
Aka...
MariaDB is not trying to keep mysql a technology backwater to protect proprietary Oracle db offerings. Its also not in bed with the NSA. Anyone that uses any Oracle products (including oracle implementation of Java), the same company that got its start selling software to the CIA, is dumb as a rock if they think they are getting security.
The first item from your link:
He tries to insert 99999999999999 into a 32 bit int field, what he gets is 2147483647 stored as the value.
What do you suppose would happen in C/C++ if you have a 32 bit int, and you add 99999999999999 to it? Are you going to curse C/C++ for allowing the int to overflow?
Allow me to introduce you to strict mode: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refma...
Which has been available for almost a decade.
You're like a dog with a bone. Last time I worked with MySQL was 5.0.1, and it was letting people insert ASCII strings into integer fields, and every time people expressed concerns, all you saw was rhetoric about how that should have been dealt with at the application layer. Which is fine if you're setting up a web forum, but not when you're organizing an enterprise that spans the world and has numerous applications accessing it, where one junior programmers mistake can hose your whole fucking enterprise. No client has mandated that I MUST use it since, therefore, I haven't used it since, and asked a serious question.
The history of MySQL was very well summed up in an earlier post: "ACID is hard, therefore we don't do it."
Not just me... most professionals know this and accept it and know that not every tool fits every scenario. Don't know what YOUR fucking problem is.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I'd always thought MySQL was NoSQL to begin with. "Datatypes? Integrity? What geezer wants those! LOL! We're webscale!"
(I love NoSQL DBs like Cassandra for the right applications. I haven't ever found an application for which I'd love MySQL.)
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think his point is to say that MySQL is a full fledge SQL database is like saying IE 6 is a standards compliant web browser. Both do the job adequately for most people, but both aren't without serious faults.
MySQL owes its success to web frameworks where better SQL servers like Postgres are considered an overkill and it works quite well in that domain. If your requirements are more on the SQL-side than the web-side of the equation, you would do much better with Postgres.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Because NoSQL, does not stand for what it appears to stand for. It's a really crappy acronym. NoSQL really stands for "Not Only Structured Query Language" as compared to "Doesn't support Structured Query Language". So, something that is "NoSQL" will do SQL styled queries as well as other types of non-SQL queries
--JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
>I think his point is to say that MySQL is a full fledge SQL database is like saying IE 6 is a standards compliant web browser.
Herein lies the problem: what standards are you referring to? ACID? Mysql 5.5 in strict mode *is* ACID compliant.
>MySQL owes its success to web frameworks where better SQL servers like Postgres are considered an overkill and it works quite well in that domain.
I think you're remembering history differently than it was. MySQL was always significantly faster than Postgres, which was a slow database until relatively recently. There's a reason companies like Google chose MySQL for their adsense platform.
>If your requirements are more on the SQL-side than the web-side of the equation, you would do much better with Postgres.
Oh, absolutely. But... this comes down to a "right tool for the job" situation. The other guy that was replying to me just hates mysql and sees no use for it.
MABASPLOOM!