I'm not sure about Oracle, but I'd be surprised if this isn't true for it too. That is, PostgreSQL has some type of checksum or hash or something, I forget which, on data pages. So, if you have a corrupt row, it will be caught at the page level.
Doing it your way, on PostgreSQL and probably Oracle too, is adding extra work which is already being done, AFAIK.
Personally, I like the fact that Access was brought up. Simple fact is, if you wouldn't use Access for your project, you shouldn't be using MySQL either.
Access = MySQL with more features, but slower. MySQL = Access, but is faster and has far fewer features.
In a nut shell, don't use MySQL if you wouldn't use Access!!
200,000 rows is still considered to be a small database. If you access this database with anything concurrent select/insert/update activity, you might consider looking into PostgreSQL.
While obviously, PostgreSQL isn't a cure all bullet, you might be surprised as how well it performs and how much better it scales.
And this is exactly why, time and time again, people point MySQL users to PostgreSQL. It's for all the reasons you can use MySQL and look up to Oracle, yet, it's free and fast.
This fact is often lost on MySQL guys. Simple fact is, more often than not, MySQL simply fails to scale.
Re:MySQL got there first and was "good enough"
on
Why MySQL Grew So Fast
·
· Score: 4, Informative
About all it lacks now is built-in replication (there exist third-party solutions), nested transactions, and point-in-time recovery (a.k.a. archive logs), things which MySQL is not likely to get anytime soon.
The 3rd party replication solution was donated to the project a release or two back. It's now freely available. Having said that, internal code changes continue to take place to support better, faster, stronger replication capabilities in the future. No known ETA.
I believe nested transactions as getting some low priority cycles. No known ETA. It is nice to know that it is are on their radar.
Point-in-time recovery is being actively worked on and has been for some time. Expect it in the next major release or two. Probably will be in the next major release but may slip. It has slipped before. They elected to get better infrastructure in place so they wouldn't have to shoehorn it in. That's fine by me. That means a rock solid implementation with no major surprises down the road.
things which MySQL is not likely to get anytime soon
Too true. PostgreSQL is working on "enterprise features" and occationally someone stops to try to optimise here and there. As is, PostgreSQL is pretty fast. Performance is generally regarded to be in league with the big boys of the RDBMS world. PostgreSQL makes an attempt to adhere to SQL specifications. MySQL is pretty far from being conforming to any specification and is missing very basic RDBMS features. It will be years and years before MySQL is as feature rich as PostgreSQL is today.
I believe other items which are getting some attention include distributed queries and two-phase commits. Along those lines, the protocol that PostgreSQL uses has been getting attention to better support more complex communication requirements (two-phase commit, distributed queries, etc).
Lots of cool stuff is comming out of the PostgreSQL pipeline. Sadly, it just won't all be available tomorrow.:(
Re:Because they were the first to support subqueri
on
Why MySQL Grew So Fast
·
· Score: 1
So true. MySQL is fast as long as it's not ACID compliant. Want transactions and ACID? MySQL just got slower. Want concurrent DB access for multiple users or multiple sessions? MySQL just got slower. Want to use MySQL for mixed select/insert/update activity? MySQL just got a lot slower. Want to use MySQL for complex queries or many table joins? MySQL just got a lot slower. MySQL has a built in speed advantage because it's so feature poor. Less features means it has less code. As they add more features, I fully expect performance to continue to decline in all areas.
Basically, the only speed advantage that MySQL has over other DB's is when you have an select only environment with little to no concurrent activity. Once you exit that criteria boundry, other DB's suddenly perform as fast or faster. The further over the boundry you get, the better other RDBMS options look. Best of all, the other DB options tend to be feature rich to boot.
The fact that it's simple, easy to install, and cater to people that don't know a DB from a spreadsheet, is all you need to know to understand why MySQL is so popular.
If it takes someone 30-seconds to figure out how to answer their cell phone, I think that's nature telling them they are too stupid to own one. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.:(
that we are losing a serious knowledge base. We are not talking about jobs which are taught or mentored in a month to a years time. We're talking about jobs that have 4, 8, and even 10 years worth of education being flushed down the tubes. While it's sad that blue collar jobs were lost to outsourcing, this isn't the same thing. Many blue collar workers can be retooled to work another blue collar job in 6 months to two years and still be making the same kind of money. What are highly trained IT workers supposed to retool to become? How many millions of high tech training dollars are we flushing out of our own economy? Now then, imagine years from now when the IT knowledge base is mostly out of the states, the US is going to become a third world IT country, skillset wise.
Right now, there is a huge quality gap between current US IT quality and the crap that comes from outsourcing countries. Just the same, that gap will continue to close as the years go by. With each step up in skills to outsourcing countries, the US' skillset takes a notch down. This cycle of inferior skillsets for inferior products which is causing a significant loss of US skills benfits no one, save only the countries which are using these skillsets. Beyond that, it's harmful to the US economy and its long term technology position.
I wish US companies would wake up and think of the big picture 5 or even tens years from now rather than the next stock quote 6 months away. Short term greed is killing our IT economy.
I hate to be pedantic, but I still don't think it holds water. A non-turbo prop plane is going to consume more expensive fuel at a lower burn rate, for a longer duration. Plus, it's not going to have the mission capabilities that a turbofan is going to have. So, to satisfy the same load, I'd best guess that you're going to require two or three as many trips. Which means, you either need a second plane or third plane to reduce the number of legs or you're looking at two to three the number of legs with two to three the number of operating hours for each leg. Add in TBO costs to each operating hour and turbo fans suddenly look WAY better. Better, as in, faster, high mission loads, shorter durations, longer TBO windows and less expensive TBO when time is up. These are basically the primary factors of why airliners use turbos for anything other than very short hops (puddle jumpers). And even for puddle jumpers, turbo props are very popular for the exact same reasons.
Long short short, time is not the primary reason why turbo fans are popular with airliners.
On a couple of side notes, IIRC, the worlds fastest train is a French built diesel-electric train.
Also, generally speaking, operating propellor GA planes are almost always much more expensive to operate than commercial jets, such as what you would normally fly on. So, I'm not sure your comparison even holds water. There are many factors to consider and I think it's going to depend on how you slice the pie and what portions of expense you're willing to absorb/ignore.
That's actually not true. Current diesel-electric trains can go just as fast as maglev and still be cheaper to operate. The down side is, there is slightly more vibration in a diesel-electric than there is in a mag-lev.
Basically, the equation boils down to: diesel-electric = same speed but much, much cheaper
mag-lev = cool tech, same speed, more expenesive to run and much more expensive to deploy. *Slightly* less vibration.
So, again, I'm forced to ask, aside from the mucho-cool factor, why do people was a much more expensive solution?
I, for one, would much rather ride a Maglev monorail with others, than drive a gas-guzzling car by myself....that maglev technology was not cost effective because of the added cost in producing and laying out the expensive tracks. Not to mention the huge cost of levitating the train. Last I heard, modern diesel trains were much more cost effective to not only deploy (can use existing infrastructure -- which also is cheap when new deployment is required), but to operate. Last I heard, a modern diesel-electric train is far, far, cheaper to operate than a mag-lev train. What's changed?
While I certainly think the technology is mucho-cool and the geek in me wants to ride on one, the pragmatist in me doesn't understand how they make sense in the least.
First, let me say thanks for taking the time to respond. So, "thanks!"
So your argument is that you think AmigaOS has a future? Beyond that of mere geekdom and minimal hobbiest interest? Accordingly, in your opinion, it has a grand future, the general population is interested in hearing of its advances? Forgive me for placing words into your mouth. I'm just trying to follow the logic. Please feel free to correct me as needed.
Do you have any logic, beyond best wishes, to suppose that AmigaOS has any real future? What's the logic to support such a notion? Admittedly, I don't see such a grand vision in AmigaOS' future.
This is not to say that I have ill wishes for the project. I don't. I just have trouble seeing any real future for the project, beyond that of minimal hobbiest interest.
That's a far response. Unlike a troll that did post, your comments are actually welcome. The fact that they made sense is all the better.
I guess in response, I can only say that I don't consider comparing it to Linux to be the same thing. Linux's plight was/is to offer an alternate, yet free, Unix implementation. AmigoOS? A gateway to the past? Seriously, I don't think comparing the two works very well. Right off the bat, I have a hard time imagining AmigaOS ever reaching any type of critical mass again. As a result, I have a hard time imagining it ever being anything more than a retro-niche OS.
Since you did bring the comparision of Linux into this mix, I'll move forward in the following statement. Linux has a future. Does AmigaOS? Not that I can see. From a generalized perspective, we already have:
I can't imagine there being much longevity in such a niche. As a result, I guess my point was, those that already have a serious interest in the project, probably don't need/. to point them at the project.
Not really. I think the "troll meter" is squarely pointing at you.
It doesn't exactly take many brain cells to understand why such a question was asked. In other words, pretty much everyone that reads/. already knows about Amigas and undying plight. Just the same, if only a thousand readers, out of millions, give a crap about the platform, one has to wonder why it's on/. This isn't rocket science Mr. Troll.
Reading the rest of your post, it's obvious that either you are a troll or an absolute moron. Either way, get a life and grow up.
It's called sarcasm. It means, I have a hard time picturing more than a very small number of people actually using this. Thusly, the rest of the paragraph, which you did not quote. Humor can be had without it being considered a troll.
I figure that just like cable and sat, once they hit critical mass, the non-commercial channels will be gone.
Anyone remember the lying assholes, when cable started getting really poplar, that cable is and always will be commercial free? That was one of the huge selling points. Then, once they got critical mass, every channel has commercials on it. Now, seems everyone accepts it without a second thought.
Unless you have a contract with these companies which state that they will never change to a commercial format, I think you have a better chance of being struck my lightening 1000x, for 1000x days in a row, then you do of them not adding commercials in the near to semi-near future.
But why would anyone waste their time on AmigaOS these days? Ya, it was way cool when Apple II's roamed the earth and whatnot....but why does anyone really care about it now?
Did I miss the boat? Help me understand why anyone cares about this, let alone why it qualifies as/. worthy? How many people even mess with that platform? I assume all three of you are happy. Seriously, anyone have any idea how many people still use Amigas? Hundreds? Thousands????? If it's not at least tens of thousands, I can't imagine this is really/. worthy.
Can someone help me understand why this platform is still getting development effort? Please!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure about Oracle, but I'd be surprised if this isn't true for it too. That is, PostgreSQL has some type of checksum or hash or something, I forget which, on data pages. So, if you have a corrupt row, it will be caught at the page level.
Doing it your way, on PostgreSQL and probably Oracle too, is adding extra work which is already being done, AFAIK.
Personally, I like the fact that Access was brought up. Simple fact is, if you wouldn't use Access for your project, you shouldn't be using MySQL either.
Access = MySQL with more features, but slower.
MySQL = Access, but is faster and has far fewer features.
In a nut shell, don't use MySQL if you wouldn't use Access!!
Man, I sure hope someone mods you up!
You're hitting 100%!
Opps. Sorry, I missed this in my first post. Actually, PostgreSQL is the best bang for your buck. It's free, scalable and feature rich.
200,000 rows is still considered to be a small database. If you access this database with anything concurrent select/insert/update activity, you might consider looking into PostgreSQL.
While obviously, PostgreSQL isn't a cure all bullet, you might be surprised as how well it performs and how much better it scales.
And this is exactly why, time and time again, people point MySQL users to PostgreSQL. It's for all the reasons you can use MySQL and look up to Oracle, yet, it's free and fast.
This fact is often lost on MySQL guys. Simple fact is, more often than not, MySQL simply fails to scale.
About all it lacks now is built-in replication (there exist third-party solutions), nested transactions, and point-in-time recovery (a.k.a. archive logs), things which MySQL is not likely to get anytime soon.
:(
The 3rd party replication solution was donated to the project a release or two back. It's now freely available. Having said that, internal code changes continue to take place to support better, faster, stronger replication capabilities in the future. No known ETA.
I believe nested transactions as getting some low priority cycles. No known ETA. It is nice to know that it is are on their radar.
Point-in-time recovery is being actively worked on and has been for some time. Expect it in the next major release or two. Probably will be in the next major release but may slip. It has slipped before. They elected to get better infrastructure in place so they wouldn't have to shoehorn it in. That's fine by me. That means a rock solid implementation with no major surprises down the road.
things which MySQL is not likely to get anytime soon
Too true. PostgreSQL is working on "enterprise features" and occationally someone stops to try to optimise here and there. As is, PostgreSQL is pretty fast. Performance is generally regarded to be in league with the big boys of the RDBMS world. PostgreSQL makes an attempt to adhere to SQL specifications. MySQL is pretty far from being conforming to any specification and is missing very basic RDBMS features. It will be years and years before MySQL is as feature rich as PostgreSQL is today.
I believe other items which are getting some attention include distributed queries and two-phase commits. Along those lines, the protocol that PostgreSQL uses has been getting attention to better support more complex communication requirements (two-phase commit, distributed queries, etc).
Lots of cool stuff is comming out of the PostgreSQL pipeline. Sadly, it just won't all be available tomorrow.
So true. MySQL is fast as long as it's not ACID compliant. Want transactions and ACID? MySQL just got slower. Want concurrent DB access for multiple users or multiple sessions? MySQL just got slower. Want to use MySQL for mixed select/insert/update activity? MySQL just got a lot slower. Want to use MySQL for complex queries or many table joins? MySQL just got a lot slower. MySQL has a built in speed advantage because it's so feature poor. Less features means it has less code. As they add more features, I fully expect performance to continue to decline in all areas.
Basically, the only speed advantage that MySQL has over other DB's is when you have an select only environment with little to no concurrent activity. Once you exit that criteria boundry, other DB's suddenly perform as fast or faster. The further over the boundry you get, the better other RDBMS options look. Best of all, the other DB options tend to be feature rich to boot.
The fact that it's simple, easy to install, and cater to people that don't know a DB from a spreadsheet, is all you need to know to understand why MySQL is so popular.
How many piecese of your equipment are RF shielded?
If it takes someone 30-seconds to figure out how to answer their cell phone, I think that's nature telling them they are too stupid to own one. Sadly, it doesn't work that way. :(
that we are losing a serious knowledge base. We are not talking about jobs which are taught or mentored in a month to a years time. We're talking about jobs that have 4, 8, and even 10 years worth of education being flushed down the tubes. While it's sad that blue collar jobs were lost to outsourcing, this isn't the same thing. Many blue collar workers can be retooled to work another blue collar job in 6 months to two years and still be making the same kind of money. What are highly trained IT workers supposed to retool to become? How many millions of high tech training dollars are we flushing out of our own economy? Now then, imagine years from now when the IT knowledge base is mostly out of the states, the US is going to become a third world IT country, skillset wise.
Right now, there is a huge quality gap between current US IT quality and the crap that comes from outsourcing countries. Just the same, that gap will continue to close as the years go by. With each step up in skills to outsourcing countries, the US' skillset takes a notch down. This cycle of inferior skillsets for inferior products which is causing a significant loss of US skills benfits no one, save only the countries which are using these skillsets. Beyond that, it's harmful to the US economy and its long term technology position.
I wish US companies would wake up and think of the big picture 5 or even tens years from now rather than the next stock quote 6 months away. Short term greed is killing our IT economy.
I hate to be pedantic, but I still don't think it holds water. A non-turbo prop plane is going to consume more expensive fuel at a lower burn rate, for a longer duration. Plus, it's not going to have the mission capabilities that a turbofan is going to have. So, to satisfy the same load, I'd best guess that you're going to require two or three as many trips. Which means, you either need a second plane or third plane to reduce the number of legs or you're looking at two to three the number of legs with two to three the number of operating hours for each leg. Add in TBO costs to each operating hour and turbo fans suddenly look WAY better. Better, as in, faster, high mission loads, shorter durations, longer TBO windows and less expensive TBO when time is up. These are basically the primary factors of why airliners use turbos for anything other than very short hops (puddle jumpers). And even for puddle jumpers, turbo props are very popular for the exact same reasons.
Long short short, time is not the primary reason why turbo fans are popular with airliners.
On a couple of side notes, IIRC, the worlds fastest train is a French built diesel-electric train.
Also, generally speaking, operating propellor GA planes are almost always much more expensive to operate than commercial jets, such as what you would normally fly on. So, I'm not sure your comparison even holds water. There are many factors to consider and I think it's going to depend on how you slice the pie and what portions of expense you're willing to absorb/ignore.
That's actually not true. Current diesel-electric trains can go just as fast as maglev and still be cheaper to operate. The down side is, there is slightly more vibration in a diesel-electric than there is in a mag-lev.
Basically, the equation boils down to:
diesel-electric = same speed but much, much cheaper
mag-lev = cool tech, same speed, more expenesive to run and much more expensive to deploy. *Slightly* less vibration.
So, again, I'm forced to ask, aside from the mucho-cool factor, why do people was a much more expensive solution?
It's a valid question because Ms has previously released licenses with such clauses.
The grandparent post is not a troll nor is it he a flamebait.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
;)
Just the same, does it make sense to use it today? Compared to low-cost modern technology, does it still justify its use today?
I hate to say it, but what has it done for me lately?
I, for one, would much rather ride a Maglev monorail with others, than drive a gas-guzzling car by myself. ...that maglev technology was not cost effective because of the added cost in producing and laying out the expensive tracks. Not to mention the huge cost of levitating the train. Last I heard, modern diesel trains were much more cost effective to not only deploy (can use existing infrastructure -- which also is cheap when new deployment is required), but to operate. Last I heard, a modern diesel-electric train is far, far, cheaper to operate than a mag-lev train. What's changed?
While I certainly think the technology is mucho-cool and the geek in me wants to ride on one, the pragmatist in me doesn't understand how they make sense in the least.
First, let me say thanks for taking the time to respond. So, "thanks!"
So your argument is that you think AmigaOS has a future? Beyond that of mere geekdom and minimal hobbiest interest? Accordingly, in your opinion, it has a grand future, the general population is interested in hearing of its advances? Forgive me for placing words into your mouth. I'm just trying to follow the logic. Please feel free to correct me as needed.
Do you have any logic, beyond best wishes, to suppose that AmigaOS has any real future? What's the logic to support such a notion? Admittedly, I don't see such a grand vision in AmigaOS' future.
This is not to say that I have ill wishes for the project. I don't. I just have trouble seeing any real future for the project, beyond that of minimal hobbiest interest.
Opps...that was supposed to say, "that's a fair response".
Thanks again.
That's a far response. Unlike a troll that did post, your comments are actually welcome. The fact that they made sense is all the better.
/. to point them at the project.
I guess in response, I can only say that I don't consider comparing it to Linux to be the same thing. Linux's plight was/is to offer an alternate, yet free, Unix implementation. AmigoOS? A gateway to the past? Seriously, I don't think comparing the two works very well. Right off the bat, I have a hard time imagining AmigaOS ever reaching any type of critical mass again. As a result, I have a hard time imagining it ever being anything more than a retro-niche OS.
Since you did bring the comparision of Linux into this mix, I'll move forward in the following statement. Linux has a future. Does AmigaOS? Not that I can see. From a generalized perspective, we already have:
Hobbiest & Technical users: Linux/Unix/BSD/Hurd/QNX
Simplistic users: Mac
Mainstream users: Win
Retro???: AmigaOS???
I can't imagine there being much longevity in such a niche. As a result, I guess my point was, those that already have a serious interest in the project, probably don't need
Thanks for sharing your insight.
Not really. I think the "troll meter" is squarely pointing at you.
/. already knows about Amigas and undying plight. Just the same, if only a thousand readers, out of millions, give a crap about the platform, one has to wonder why it's on /. This isn't rocket science Mr. Troll.
It doesn't exactly take many brain cells to understand why such a question was asked. In other words, pretty much everyone that reads
Reading the rest of your post, it's obvious that either you are a troll or an absolute moron. Either way, get a life and grow up.
You said this wasn't a troll?
It's called sarcasm. It means, I have a hard time picturing more than a very small number of people actually using this. Thusly, the rest of the paragraph, which you did not quote. Humor can be had without it being considered a troll.
Interesting. Thanks.
I figure that just like cable and sat, once they hit critical mass, the non-commercial channels will be gone.
Anyone remember the lying assholes, when cable started getting really poplar, that cable is and always will be commercial free? That was one of the huge selling points. Then, once they got critical mass, every channel has commercials on it. Now, seems everyone accepts it without a second thought.
Unless you have a contract with these companies which state that they will never change to a commercial format, I think you have a better chance of being struck my lightening 1000x, for 1000x days in a row, then you do of them not adding commercials in the near to semi-near future.
...and this is not a troll.
/. worthy? How many people even mess with that platform? I assume all three of you are happy. Seriously, anyone have any idea how many people still use Amigas? Hundreds? Thousands????? If it's not at least tens of thousands, I can't imagine this is really /. worthy.
But why would anyone waste their time on AmigaOS these days? Ya, it was way cool when Apple II's roamed the earth and whatnot....but why does anyone really care about it now?
Did I miss the boat? Help me understand why anyone cares about this, let alone why it qualifies as
Can someone help me understand why this platform is still getting development effort? Please!