What about for those of us who don't know what 'support views, stored procedures, transactions (InnoDB does, but this is an additional product) and a bunch of other developer's friends.' are?
Don't write DB apps! Simple huh?:)
Seriously though, db theory is not at all hard to comprehend and if you can learn to program you can learn it easily.
Do yourself a favor and learn, or if you don't want to, do everyone else a favor and stay away from databases.:)
With MySQL it is a bit more then just an abstraction problem. Untill fairly recently MySQL did not support foreign keys and it still doesn't by default.
So take a:
client -< order -< parts
relationship.
On deleting the client you'd have to select all orders and delete the parts involved, then delete the orders and then delete the client.
Now exchange MySQL for a real RDBMS. The RDBMS will take care of everything upon deleting the client. There is no real harm in your application trying to delete records that have already been deleted, but I hope you can see the need or at least the urge to rewrite it.
This is just a simple example. if you take into account the multitudes of 'programmers' who've never heard of transactions and were first exposed to databases with MySQL then the agony is endless:)
Bottom line is: when porting from MySQL, expect rewrites!
I think he was alluding to neither being suitable for any real DB work.
Untill fairly recently MySQL lacked most basic RDBMS features that even MS-Access has, and it still lacks a lot of them.
I would imagine that MySQL does hold up a little better then Access in a heavy production environment though:).
I have some hope for MySQL however. They are getting there in their own timeframe. They are a company and obviously listen to their customers and take care of their bottom line first. But they do share the results with the wider community and for that they have my sympathy.
For now however, the parent post is right. Don't use it if you can avoid it.
Because Postgresql cannot compete with MySQL in terms of features that count for the target scenarios.
Bullshit! If your scenario is 'having an RDBMS' then it's MySQL who cannot live up to the task, Transactions, subqueries and data constraints are more then just 'nifty features' you know.
There is no readily available workforce that has actual Postgresql knowledge. There are on the other hand buttloads of people available that can drive average sized MySQL installations for cheap money.
Yes but you get what you pay for. Database theory IS NOT hard to learn, but if you prefer your neighbourhood 'computer expert' who's never looked further then his various cookbooks, then MySQL is your database:).
Agreed though, Postgres replication is crap at best and it's documentation is horrible. If I recall correctly most user contributed notes on postgresql.org are either complaints about how lacking the documentation is or contributions that SHOULD have been in the docs themselves.
Sorry if this came out as a bit of a troll, I've just seen to many Perl|PHP|WhatHaveYou 'hackers' poor their awful code on an unsuspecting world *shudder* and MySQL, even though not at fault, has been a major catalyst in this. Certainly not your fault though, so sorry:)
It's really a good thing to know what you are on about before posting you know. Reading the article can help.
This is not about PHP not working with MySQL and certainly not about any restrictive license on PHP's part.
MySQL enjoyed a special status with PHP as being bundled with PHP by default. MySQL changed the license for their libraries from LGPL to GPL. As a result the PHP people felt they could no longer bundle the libraries with PHP.
MySQL now added a clause to their license so that they can retain their 'preferred' status.
unless the developers of PHP want to play source with us in OSS land
Well I'm not a PHP developer, but I'll play source with you any day:)
I can't really think of any retail chain that specifically allows its individual stores to order individual products. Specific ordering on a store level for any chain that buys in bulk is an inventory management nightmare and would come at nothing less than a huge cost, and therefore price, increase.
Are you suggesting that stores don't get stocked on the basis of what they need but rather on the basis of what they should have needed??
Sounds like a daft idea to me! Retail chains are, as far as I can tell, not in the business of moving products to where they are not needed but rather doing their best to move products to where they ARE needed.
Anyway, I've never worked in retail so for all I know you could be right. But I fail to see how this could be profitable.
Fair enough, I do have some problems whith churches (the institutions that is, not the buildings:)) but I'm not anti-religion.
I was just trying to make fun of the AC who said that "true christians don't feel superior, only other religions do that" (paraphrased), I hope you can see the irony here.
I keep thinking about Beavis and Butthead in court saying "uhm, it was those other guys that did it"
Anyway, sorry for the late reply, since the story is long dead and all, but you seem like a nice guy so cheers!:)
It get's even funnier if you actually read it. It is so damn full of contradictions, silly advice and some stories that are so damn disturbing that I cannot see a good moral either way.
Believe in whichever deity you want with my blessing, but anybody who takes the bible as their lead deserves to be laughed at.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes (Genesis 19:8) Yeah, you go Lot!
A more disgusting tale that is a bit long to quote here is Judges 19. Bottom line of the story is: A guy stays the night as a guest of another guy bringing his concubine instead. Now during the night some bullies from the city come to shake out the mistery guest, but the host will have none of that so he offers them his daughter and the guest's concubine. Anyway, the bullies didn't come for his daughter, but they take the concubine for good measure and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning. Well the poor lass dies but being a decent guy her master takes her home on a donkey. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
Yeah, I guess that's the decent thing to do under the circumstances. I wouldn't really know since I'm an atheist.
Anyway, offered any bulls lately? Remember to burn it's innards. They're such a sweet savour unto the LORD (Leviticus 1:9 and pretty much the rest of the book)
Well it depends on how you define 'crusade' ofcourse. I'd be hard pressed to call the Norman conquest of England a crusade, even though they must have surely prayed a lot.
Fact is, in medieval times every leader and his uncle were aching to get their hands on more land. That some of the ensuing batles pitted christian against muslem hardly qualifies those battles as crusades.
The 'christian' crusades however, were pretty different in that they were VERY definitely about religion.
I don't blame modern christians for crimes of the past, but I don't look kindly on even a hint of excuses. The crusades were evil, period! Saying 'others did it too' doesn't change that.
Well national socialism (as I guess you're referring too) wasn't just a political view. A belief in the manifest destiny of the arian race and the natural superiority of that race made it a lot more akin to a religion.
I can't look at "Triumph des Willens" (Triumph of the Will) without seeing a religious gathering rather than a political one.
I'm not trying to equate modern day, mainstream religion with naziism, but calling nazis atheists doesn't really fly either, and the deeper religion (and the feeling of being righteous whatever you do) goes, the scarier the comparison becomes.
Well I guess this is a point that the scientists in question must poor over when they drive home to their spouses.
Seriously though, people still enjoy roller-coaster rides, even though the physics are very well understood. Being a geek you must have realized at some point that love is really just a chemical reaction in your brain. Giving a name to the chemicals doesn't change anything. Just sit back and enjoy the ride!
Granted though "how is your oxytocin today?" doesn't sound anywhere near as endearing as "do you love me?":)
Well the same article was babled and posted by an AC further up and doing a quick scan they seemed to be the same.
That said, I don't know any Spanish but I do know a little Italian (which I gather is structuraly quit the same) and babelfish does do some 'rough' parsing ie rearanging verbs accomodating the language translated to.
Ok, since you didn't leave us with any proof I'm just gonna assume you are right.
So what WAS he doing then?? Since no WMD's have been found whatsoever....is a general leading a soap factory (assuming you are right) enough evidence of WMD's for you??
Yes you're right ofcourse, I never said Sadam was a nice guy. My point was just that my understanding is he wasn't particularly interested in suppressing women, not that his regime was very enlightened.
I'm sure that if he'd needed women rather than men for his army he wouldn't have hesitate to use the same tactic in reverse.
Well I'm no expert and I've never been to Iraq, but I always gathered that Iraq under Sadam was pretty secular. A brutal dictatorship, but not especially more so for women.
Slashdot Mirror
What about for those of us who don't know what 'support views, stored procedures, transactions (InnoDB does, but this is an additional product) and a bunch of other developer's friends.' are?
:)
:)
Don't write DB apps! Simple huh?
Seriously though, db theory is not at all hard to comprehend and if you can learn to program you can learn it easily.
Do yourself a favor and learn, or if you don't want to, do everyone else a favor and stay away from databases.
but my C web apps run circles around any PHP apps
:)
Yes, I'm sure your guestbook is really nice
Ok, that was a cheapshot and I apologize, but writing web apps in C sounds like either boasting or pure insanity to me.
Do you write your shell scripts in assembly??
With MySQL it is a bit more then just an abstraction problem. Untill fairly recently MySQL did not support foreign keys and it still doesn't by default.
:)
So take a:
client -< order -< parts
relationship.
On deleting the client you'd have to select all orders and delete the parts involved, then delete the orders and then delete the client.
Now exchange MySQL for a real RDBMS. The RDBMS will take care of everything upon deleting the client. There is no real harm in your application trying to delete records that have already been deleted, but I hope you can see the need or at least the urge to rewrite it.
This is just a simple example. if you take into account the multitudes of 'programmers' who've never heard of transactions and were first exposed to databases with MySQL then the agony is endless
Bottom line is: when porting from MySQL, expect rewrites!
I think he was alluding to neither being suitable for any real DB work.
:).
Untill fairly recently MySQL lacked most basic RDBMS features that even MS-Access has, and it still lacks a lot of them. I would imagine that MySQL does hold up a little better then Access in a heavy production environment though
I have some hope for MySQL however. They are getting there in their own timeframe. They are a company and obviously listen to their customers and take care of their bottom line first. But they do share the results with the wider community and for that they have my sympathy.
For now however, the parent post is right. Don't use it if you can avoid it.
Because Postgresql cannot compete with MySQL in terms of features that count for the target scenarios.
:).
:)
Bullshit! If your scenario is 'having an RDBMS' then it's MySQL who cannot live up to the task, Transactions, subqueries and data constraints are more then just 'nifty features' you know.
There is no readily available workforce that has actual Postgresql knowledge. There are on the other hand buttloads of people available that can drive average sized MySQL installations for cheap money.
Yes but you get what you pay for. Database theory IS NOT hard to learn, but if you prefer your neighbourhood 'computer expert' who's never looked further then his various cookbooks, then MySQL is your database
Agreed though, Postgres replication is crap at best and it's documentation is horrible. If I recall correctly most user contributed notes on postgresql.org are either complaints about how lacking the documentation is or contributions that SHOULD have been in the docs themselves.
Sorry if this came out as a bit of a troll, I've just seen to many Perl|PHP|WhatHaveYou 'hackers' poor their awful code on an unsuspecting world *shudder* and MySQL, even though not at fault, has been a major catalyst in this. Certainly not your fault though, so sorry
Cheers
It's really a good thing to know what you are on about before posting you know. Reading the article can help.
:)
This is not about PHP not working with MySQL and certainly not about any restrictive license on PHP's part.
MySQL enjoyed a special status with PHP as being bundled with PHP by default. MySQL changed the license for their libraries from LGPL to GPL. As a result the PHP people felt they could no longer bundle the libraries with PHP.
MySQL now added a clause to their license so that they can retain their 'preferred' status.
unless the developers of PHP want to play source with us in OSS land
Well I'm not a PHP developer, but I'll play source with you any day
Cheers
and looking at JPEGs of something on the net isn't the same as seeing it in person
It isn't?? There goes my love-life then.
I can't really think of any retail chain that specifically allows its individual stores to order individual products. Specific ordering on a store level for any chain that buys in bulk is an inventory management nightmare and would come at nothing less than a huge cost, and therefore price, increase.
Are you suggesting that stores don't get stocked on the basis of what they need but rather on the basis of what they should have needed??
Sounds like a daft idea to me! Retail chains are, as far as I can tell, not in the business of moving products to where they are not needed but rather doing their best to move products to where they ARE needed.
Anyway, I've never worked in retail so for all I know you could be right. But I fail to see how this could be profitable.
Fair enough, I do have some problems whith churches (the institutions that is, not the buildings :)) but I'm not anti-religion.
:)
I was just trying to make fun of the AC who said that "true christians don't feel superior, only other religions do that" (paraphrased), I hope you can see the irony here.
I keep thinking about Beavis and Butthead in court saying "uhm, it was those other guys that did it"
Anyway, sorry for the late reply, since the story is long dead and all, but you seem like a nice guy so cheers!
Can you, or anyone else in the know for that matter, shed some light on the backwards (or at least it seems backwards to me) server / client naming?
:)
I mean, you need a server for a client to serve you an application and multiple servers can be served by the same client?
Is this some historical fluke that nobody ever bothered to fix or am I just to dim to comprehend the underlying principles that justify the naming?
Not to troll, I'm really just curious and I didn't receive the memo
It get's even funnier if you actually read it. It is so damn full of contradictions, silly advice and some stories that are so damn disturbing that I cannot see a good moral either way.
Believe in whichever deity you want with my blessing, but anybody who takes the bible as their lead deserves to be laughed at.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes (Genesis 19:8) Yeah, you go Lot!
A more disgusting tale that is a bit long to quote here is Judges 19. Bottom line of the story is: A guy stays the night as a guest of another guy bringing his concubine instead. Now during the night some bullies from the city come to shake out the mistery guest, but the host will have none of that so he offers them his daughter and the guest's concubine. Anyway, the bullies didn't come for his daughter, but they take the concubine for good measure and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning. Well the poor lass dies but being a decent guy her master takes her home on a donkey. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
Yeah, I guess that's the decent thing to do under the circumstances. I wouldn't really know since I'm an atheist.
Anyway, offered any bulls lately? Remember to burn it's innards. They're such a sweet savour unto the LORD (Leviticus 1:9 and pretty much the rest of the book)
Sheesh was that a point just flying over your head? Damn it just missed you.
That is true of non-Christian religions, but true Christianity holds fast to the statement that we ARE fallen, and that we are not better than others.
So you're saying that true christians don't feel superior, but since they're no better than others they do?
Or do you mean that true christians NEVER feel superior to others and that only other religions do that? Which is a ridiculous statement.
Well it depends on how you define 'crusade' ofcourse. I'd be hard pressed to call the Norman conquest of England a crusade, even though they must have surely prayed a lot.
Fact is, in medieval times every leader and his uncle were aching to get their hands on more land. That some of the ensuing batles pitted christian against muslem hardly qualifies those battles as crusades.
The 'christian' crusades however, were pretty different in that they were VERY definitely about religion.
I don't blame modern christians for crimes of the past, but I don't look kindly on even a hint of excuses. The crusades were evil, period! Saying 'others did it too' doesn't change that.
Well national socialism (as I guess you're referring too) wasn't just a political view. A belief in the manifest destiny of the arian race and the natural superiority of that race made it a lot more akin to a religion.
I can't look at "Triumph des Willens" (Triumph of the Will) without seeing a religious gathering rather than a political one.
I'm not trying to equate modern day, mainstream religion with naziism, but calling nazis atheists doesn't really fly either, and the deeper religion (and the feeling of being righteous whatever you do) goes, the scarier the comparison becomes.
Well I guess this is a point that the scientists in question must poor over when they drive home to their spouses.
Seriously though, people still enjoy roller-coaster rides, even though the physics are very well understood. Being a geek you must have realized at some point that love is really just a chemical reaction in your brain. Giving a name to the chemicals doesn't change anything. Just sit back and enjoy the ride!
Granted though "how is your oxytocin today?" doesn't sound anywhere near as endearing as "do you love me?":)
Bah, complex words take all the charm out of conversation, I'll take "spelled sideways, sort of" over anagram any day :)
Hmmm well believe me, European countries are still VERY dependent on Middle-East oil.
Not to flame, but I don't believe that oil dependency was the reason a lot of europeans were against siding with the us.
KFG
:)
Kentucky Fried Goat? Gerbil?
Just wondering, please ignore
Well the same article was babled and posted by an AC further up and doing a quick scan they seemed to be the same.
:)
That said, I don't know any Spanish but I do know a little Italian (which I gather is structuraly quit the same) and babelfish does do some 'rough' parsing ie rearanging verbs accomodating the language translated to.
Usually it still doesn't make sense though
I thought the term was meant as 'a giver to Indians' alluding to how native Americans were treated and 'given' land and treaties.
Ok, since you didn't leave us with any proof I'm just gonna assume you are right. So what WAS he doing then?? Since no WMD's have been found whatsoever....is a general leading a soap factory (assuming you are right) enough evidence of WMD's for you??
Yes you're right ofcourse, I never said Sadam was a nice guy. My point was just that my understanding is he wasn't particularly interested in suppressing women, not that his regime was very enlightened.
I'm sure that if he'd needed women rather than men for his army he wouldn't have hesitate to use the same tactic in reverse.
Well I'm no expert and I've never been to Iraq, but I always gathered that Iraq under Sadam was pretty secular. A brutal dictatorship, but not especially more so for women.
----- Liberals are someone who will give you the shirt off SOMEBODY ELSE'S back.
:)
And idiots are someone who wouldn't know grammar if it sat on them!