One year must be "a long time" for you. Also, beta features of a third-party add-on module must mean "good enough for usage" for you.
And "MySQL has had transactions" must be like your statement in the MySQL manual, where you said that MySQL would have "Atomic Operations without rollback". Or another one of your statements "you can achieve atomic operations by using LOCK TABLE".
Wow, with such statements from you, I feel very inclined to believe other statements of yours, and use every database you touch.
You should write a book. Lots of "PC Magazine" readers would buy it.
You've been there "since the beginning" eh? What's your name then?
I can see Philip not being a super manager, with his strong style, but that's where other people (like Tracy and Eve) could come in and fill in the gaps. Philip had a vision for web applications, for aD's software and for aD as a company, and that was the icing on aD's cake.
I can't say if Shaheen and VCs coming into the company was good or bad, or if this is all due to overgrowth in short time, but some things in aD have turned better while many others have turned worse.
Funny. On the original post I read "some of the best developers" not "the best developers". I know of several excellent developers that are still at aD, but many indeed have left. Just search the web/db bboard.
I have only read bits and pieces of the PDF files that describe the suit (they are available here). It looks like Shaheen and the VCs want to take over the stock of Philip, Eve and Tracy, the co-founders of the company who are being sued.
It also looks like they (co-founders) tried to get the company back unsuccessfully.
Shaheen has only posted to the ArsDigita developer community twice in over a year at aD. If you compare this to the contributions Philip, Eve and Tracy have given, this is a joke. Of course that is only a tiny measure, but still. Many of the recent aD posts to the news are with false notices that Greenspun left the company. Not true.
Not to mention that MySQL's site is SOOOOOOO slow. Table locking not working as well for you dear Monty?
Have you heard of Multi-Variant Concurrency Control? You should go work on that instead of crying on the web about benchmarks.
Talking about Benchmarks, the one in mysql.org (or.com) is THE most misleading benchmark in the entire industry.
Somebody should tell Monty to go improve their toy database-wannabe product instead of ranting on the web.
BTW, and making MySQL a front-end to Berkeley-DB is a nice way to make it even a bigger kludge. Changing its name to "MaxSQL" to disguise that kludge and lure users is genious. Did you learn that at Redmond?
As you can see, PostgreSQL IS NO LONGER the klunky and slow product that it used to be years ago. It has improved VASTLY in the last couple of years and its developers have worked very hard to correct problems inherited from the Berkeley code.
It's a pitty that users new to database concepts and database-backed websites are misled to believe that MySQL is a robust database product. It's NOT ! It wasn't designed nor written to be.
Without
Transactions (recently partially added in MySQL)
Procedural languages (PG supports at least 3: PL/PGSQL, PL/Tcl, PL/Perl)
Subqueries (e.g: SELECT foo FROM bar WHERE bar IN (SELECT bar FROM foo2) )
Multi-Variant Concurrency Control (absolutely essential for websites - Readers don't wait for writers and writers don't wait for readers)
Referential Integrity
Much of the SQL92 standard
MySQL should only be used in applications that did not require any security or where the integrity of the data is not important (why would you want a database of inconsistent data?)
The features that I mentioned above are crucial to any database product. Without them you will be spending much more time and effort trying to implement in the application level, things that should be handled by the backend.
Look at the Sourceforge bug reports page and you'll notice that most of the problems they face are due to their poor choice: MySQL. I am not saying that MySQL does nat have its space... it does, but it's not in the enterprise and it's not in important data.
Quit whining about the ODBC deal. Stick to the facts: without these features MySQL is very limited.
If somebody told you MySQL stacked up to Oracle they gave you the biggest lie in the whole world. That would be the same as comparing Emacs with Oranges!!!
Without transactions (recently partially added), procedural languages, subqueries, Multi-Variant Concurrency Control, Referential Integrity and much of the SQL92 standard, MySQL should only be used in applications that did not require any security or where the integrity of the data is not important (why would you want a database of inconsistent data?)
It's a pitty that users new to database concepts and database-backed websites are misled to believe that MySQL is a robust database product. It's NOT ! It wasn't designed nor written to be.
The features that I mentioned above are crucial to any database product. Without them you will be spending much more time and effort trying to implement in the application level, things that should be handled by the backend.
Look at the Sourceforge bug reports page and you'll notice that most of the problems they face are due to their poor choice: MySQL.
As you can see, PostgreSQL IS NO LONGER the klunky and slow product that it used to be years ago. It has improved VASTLY in the last couple of years and its developers have worked very hard to correct problems inherited from the Berkeley code.
PostgreSQL in the past was indeed clunky and slow. However, it has improved vastly in the past two years and the PG developers have worked very hard to correct problems inherited from the Berkeley times.
Unfortunately PostgreSQL still has the old times fame but it certainly is a much much better product and in does not deserve that fame anymore.
What worried me about Postgres was that they claimed that before 6.5, there were some sections of code that NOBODY on the development team understood.
Look, not knowing crap about databases and large software projects is okay. That would explain why you got scared by reading something that happens in probably all large software projects. An RDBMS is not a "Hello World" for goodness sake !
The MySQL team probably would never admit this because they don't even understand what ACID means and because if they lie to people saying that speed is better than reliability, they would lie about this too.
The bottom line is that MySQL is just a file system with an SQL interface. That's it. If you want to play databases, go with it, but please post here if you ever do anything public with it so we never buy anything there.
PostgreSQL has been improving vastly and constantly. Release 7 comes with lots of optimizing changes, bug fixes and foreign keys. PostgreSQL is almost 100% ACID-compliant. The MySQL implementors don't even know what that is, rather try to implement it.
The thing that MySQL brain-washed people don't get is: Speed is not the only thing in the world
PostgreSQL or any other REAL RDBMS can be tweaked for improved performance. It maybe not as fast as the glorified file system that MySQL is, but it will get pretty close.
Bottom line is that the things that REAL RDBMSs provide are key. Data is key. Consistency and atomicity are key. MySQL doesn't even try to solve the problems that RDBMSs are meant for.
New users are seduced by the talk about MySQL when not even their implementors know what atomicity means. Just read their manual. It's a joke. Calling MySQL an RDBMS is a blatant use of that acronym.
AOLserver is an excellent web server... totally multithreaded, persistent database connections, database abstraction layer, extremely fast.
ACS is an excellent toolkit. Anyone with a technical mind that has gone through its data model will notice how well thought and implemented it is. Really slick. The port for PostgreSQL has its first beta out, and a new beta due in the next couple of weeks. USU Free Software and GNU/Linux Club website runs with ACS/pg and it is great... totally free source software. http://linux.usu.edu. Download ACS/pg at http://acspg.benadida.com and build a serious, reliable, and scalable web site.
Philip Greenspun does a great job when it comes to the web and database backed websites. He supports Free Software (his toolkit and tools are all free) and gives away US$ 10,000 every year in a prize for someone who creates a good, free, web service. He and his company have trained hundreds of people on web services for free, and ArsDigita pays and treats its programmers REALLY well.
As for Oracle, I don't know why you folks cry so much about it. It is the best RDBMS around, period. It's not for everyone though. If you have really important data, you probably have the money to pay for it. Someday PostgreSQL will get there too. It has improved VASTLY. MySQL is not even trying to solve the problems that RDBMSs were designed to solve. Sorry, but it is the truth.
If you are used to Apache and PHP, fine. Go with it, it's your tool of choice. But don't let your religion get in front of your technical mind to the point where you simply can't distinguish what's true and what's not. Let the technical details speak for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, forgot the URL: http://jdbc.postgresql.org/
The 7.2 JDBC driver is much better in that regard, and it is backwards compatible with PG 7.1, 7.0 and I think 6.5.
Monty,
One year must be "a long time" for you. Also, beta features of a third-party add-on module must mean "good enough for usage" for you.
And "MySQL has had transactions" must be like your statement in the MySQL manual, where you said that MySQL would have "Atomic Operations without rollback". Or another one of your statements "you can achieve atomic operations by using LOCK TABLE".
Wow, with such statements from you, I feel very inclined to believe other statements of yours, and use every database you touch.
You should write a book. Lots of "PC Magazine" readers would buy it.
You've been there "since the beginning" eh? What's your name then?
I can see Philip not being a super manager, with his strong style, but that's where other people (like Tracy and Eve) could come in and fill in the gaps. Philip had a vision for web applications, for aD's software and for aD as a company, and that was the icing on aD's cake.
I can't say if Shaheen and VCs coming into the company was good or bad, or if this is all due to overgrowth in short time, but some things in aD have turned better while many others have turned worse.
Funny. On the original post I read "some of the best developers" not "the best developers". I know of several excellent developers that are still at aD, but many indeed have left. Just search the web/db bboard.
It also looks like they (co-founders) tried to get the company back unsuccessfully.
Shaheen has only posted to the ArsDigita developer community twice in over a year at aD. If you compare this to the contributions Philip, Eve and Tracy have given, this is a joke. Of course that is only a tiny measure, but still. Many of the recent aD posts to the news are with false notices that Greenspun left the company. Not true.
Not to mention that MySQL's site is SOOOOOOO slow. Table locking not working as well for you dear Monty?
.com) is THE most misleading benchmark in the entire industry.
Have you heard of Multi-Variant Concurrency Control? You should go work on that instead of crying on the web about benchmarks.
Talking about Benchmarks, the one in mysql.org (or
Somebody should tell Monty to go improve their toy database-wannabe product instead of ranting on the web.
BTW, and making MySQL a front-end to Berkeley-DB is a nice way to make it even a bigger kludge. Changing its name to "MaxSQL" to disguise that kludge and lure users is genious. Did you learn that at Redmond?
It's a pitty that users new to database concepts and database-backed websites are misled to believe that MySQL is a robust database product. It's NOT ! It wasn't designed nor written to be.
Without
- Transactions (recently partially added in MySQL)
- Procedural languages (PG supports at least 3: PL/PGSQL, PL/Tcl, PL/Perl)
- Subqueries (e.g: SELECT foo FROM bar WHERE bar IN (SELECT bar FROM foo2) )
- Multi-Variant Concurrency Control (absolutely essential for websites - Readers don't wait for writers and writers don't wait for readers)
- Referential Integrity
- Much of the SQL92 standard
MySQL should only be used in applications that did not require any security or where the integrity of the data is not important (why would you want a database of inconsistent data?)The features that I mentioned above are crucial to any database product. Without them you will be spending much more time and effort trying to implement in the application level, things that should be handled by the backend.
Look at the Sourceforge bug reports page and you'll notice that most of the problems they face are due to their poor choice: MySQL. I am not saying that MySQL does nat have its space... it does, but it's not in the enterprise and it's not in important data.
Quit whining about the ODBC deal. Stick to the facts: without these features MySQL is very limited.
Without transactions (recently partially added), procedural languages, subqueries, Multi-Variant Concurrency Control, Referential Integrity and much of the SQL92 standard, MySQL should only be used in applications that did not require any security or where the integrity of the data is not important (why would you want a database of inconsistent data?)
It's a pitty that users new to database concepts and database-backed websites are misled to believe that MySQL is a robust database product. It's NOT ! It wasn't designed nor written to be.
The features that I mentioned above are crucial to any database product. Without them you will be spending much more time and effort trying to implement in the application level, things that should be handled by the backend.
Look at the Sourceforge bug reports page and you'll notice that most of the problems they face are due to their poor choice: MySQL.
As you can see, PostgreSQL IS NO LONGER the klunky and slow product that it used to be years ago. It has improved VASTLY in the last couple of years and its developers have worked very hard to correct problems inherited from the Berkeley code.
PostgreSQL in the past was indeed clunky and slow. However, it has improved vastly in the past two years and the PG developers have worked very hard to correct problems inherited from the Berkeley times. Unfortunately PostgreSQL still has the old times fame but it certainly is a much much better product and in does not deserve that fame anymore.
Look, not knowing crap about databases and large software projects is okay. That would explain why you got scared by reading something that happens in probably all large software projects. An RDBMS is not a "Hello World" for goodness sake !
The MySQL team probably would never admit this because they don't even understand what ACID means and because if they lie to people saying that speed is better than reliability, they would lie about this too.
The bottom line is that MySQL is just a file system with an SQL interface. That's it. If you want to play databases, go with it, but please post here if you ever do anything public with it so we never buy anything there.
PostgreSQL has been improving vastly and constantly. Release 7 comes with lots of optimizing changes, bug fixes and foreign keys. PostgreSQL is almost 100% ACID-compliant. The MySQL implementors don't even know what that is, rather try to implement it.
PostgreSQL or any other REAL RDBMS can be tweaked for improved performance. It maybe not as fast as the glorified file system that MySQL is, but it will get pretty close.
Bottom line is that the things that REAL RDBMSs provide are key. Data is key. Consistency and atomicity are key. MySQL doesn't even try to solve the problems that RDBMSs are meant for.
New users are seduced by the talk about MySQL when not even their implementors know what atomicity means. Just read their manual. It's a joke. Calling MySQL an RDBMS is a blatant use of that acronym.
AOLserver is an excellent web server... totally multithreaded, persistent database connections, database abstraction layer, extremely fast.
ACS is an excellent toolkit. Anyone with a technical mind that has gone through its data model will notice how well thought and implemented it is. Really slick. The port for PostgreSQL has its first beta out, and a new beta due in the next couple of weeks. USU Free Software and GNU/Linux Club website runs with ACS/pg and it is great... totally free source software. http://linux.usu.edu. Download ACS/pg at http://acspg.benadida.com and build a serious, reliable, and scalable web site.
Philip Greenspun does a great job when it comes to the web and database backed websites. He supports Free Software (his toolkit and tools are all free) and gives away US$ 10,000 every year in a prize for someone who creates a good, free, web service. He and his company have trained hundreds of people on web services for free, and ArsDigita pays and treats its programmers REALLY well.
As for Oracle, I don't know why you folks cry so much about it. It is the best RDBMS around, period. It's not for everyone though. If you have really important data, you probably have the money to pay for it. Someday PostgreSQL will get there too. It has improved VASTLY. MySQL is not even trying to solve the problems that RDBMSs were designed to solve. Sorry, but it is the truth.
If you are used to Apache and PHP, fine. Go with it, it's your tool of choice. But don't let your religion get in front of your technical mind to the point where you simply can't distinguish what's true and what's not. Let the technical details speak for themselves.