Same old rant over and over again
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
A hardware or power failure in the middle of a set of statements will break the atomicity of the block if there is no rollback capability.
nobody really expects that after a hardware failure the server is going to fully recover due to a rollback feature. You get backup systems for that horrible eventuality. Rollbacks are for people operating a system with win31 client fumbling around in a database through ODBC. In a serious system you have a web-interface such as slashdot or you have an application server (java servlets or CORBA) taking care of the buisiness logic. Your server isn't suppose to crash and if it crahes... if, if, if. The rollback people should consider building meteorite shelters around their servers.
Transactions and triggers kill speed without protecting mission-critical data. After all it's still me who programs the logic into the system. If I can't do it right in a SQL-statement, why should I succeed with a stored procedure or a trigger? Why is a program more advanced that does lots of messy stuff and then says "rollback" instead of being a little more intelligent in the first place?
The "few more details" are no good reasons at all:
MySQL has no subqueries MySQL 3.23 has.
MySQL has no stored procedures And so what? MySQL is optimized for server side applications. The App communicates with the server via a local socket or a TCP connection on a local LAN. Surely that is no bottleneck.
MySQL has no triggers or foreign key constraints Right. Because nobody needs them. They obfuscate the code and are only essential in theoretical discussions about RDBMSs.
MySQL only has table-level locking MySQL has application locking and it works wonderfully and is fast as hell. The author obviously does not know about it or assumes that the applications with direct access to the database are written by different teams with hostile intentions. In that case, good night.
An enterprise-level system will never compromise certain features for speed
No of course not, the IT-managers usually want to spend a lot of money and how should you do that with a free Unix box and MySQL? Rather use an extremely slow RDBMS with has tons of irrelevant features slowing everything down. In that way you can claim the need for a multi-mega expensive supercomputer which makes for a much nicer appearance in your server room.
Photons as well as bosons and gluons are pseudo-particles that cannot be used in such hand-waving arguments. They are concepts to deal with the quantum mechanical aspects of the fundamental forces. Nobody has ever detected a graviton although it it clear that there must be such a thing. The quantum mechanical nature of gravity is extremely unclear at the moment and is not explained at all by the standard model. In fact, this one of the central problems of physics at the moment and bright people are working on String Theory in order to get a clue. The answers to the questions about the relationship of gravity with the other forces (EM, weak and strong interactions) might be decades away. As for a serious discussion of gravity shielding, please wait for the grand unified theory that so many physicists yearn for. Anyway, talking about photons cancelling out gravitons is nonsense. This is simply not the case.
Slashdot Mirror
A hardware or power failure in the middle of a set of statements will break the atomicity of the block if there is no rollback capability.
nobody really expects that after a hardware failure the server is going to fully recover due to a rollback feature. You get backup systems for that horrible eventuality. Rollbacks are for people operating a system with win31 client fumbling around in a database through ODBC. In a serious system you have a web-interface such as slashdot or you have an application server (java servlets or CORBA) taking care of the buisiness logic. Your server isn't suppose to crash and if it crahes ... if, if, if. The rollback people should consider building meteorite shelters around their servers.
Transactions and triggers kill speed without protecting mission-critical data. After all it's still me who programs the logic into the system. If I can't do it right in a SQL-statement, why should I succeed with a stored procedure or a trigger? Why is a program more advanced that does lots of messy stuff and then says "rollback" instead of being a little more intelligent in the first place?
The "few more details" are no good reasons at all:
MySQL 3.23 has.
And so what? MySQL is optimized for server side applications. The App communicates with the server via a local socket or a TCP connection on a local LAN. Surely that is no bottleneck.
Right. Because nobody needs them. They obfuscate the code and are only essential in theoretical discussions about RDBMSs.
MySQL has application locking and it works wonderfully and is fast as hell. The author obviously does not know about it or assumes that the applications with direct access to the database are written by different teams with hostile intentions. In that case, good night.
An enterprise-level system will never compromise certain features for speed
No of course not, the IT-managers usually want to spend a lot of money and how should you do that with a free Unix box and MySQL? Rather use an extremely slow RDBMS with has tons of irrelevant features slowing everything down. In that way you can claim the need for a multi-mega expensive supercomputer which makes for a much nicer appearance in your server room.
Photons as well as bosons and gluons are pseudo-particles that cannot be used in such hand-waving arguments. They are concepts to deal with the quantum mechanical aspects of the fundamental forces. Nobody has ever detected a graviton although it it clear that there must be such a thing. The quantum mechanical nature of gravity is extremely unclear at the moment and is not explained at all by the standard model. In fact, this one of the central problems of physics at the moment and bright people are working on String Theory in order to get a clue. The answers to the questions about the relationship of gravity with the other forces (EM, weak and strong interactions) might be decades away. As for a serious discussion of gravity shielding, please wait for the grand unified theory that so many physicists yearn for. Anyway, talking about photons cancelling out gravitons is nonsense. This is simply not the case.