×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24221947)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
download newest goatse release candidate here [goatse.ch]

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24222803)

download newest goatse release candidate here

Frankly, this release is not an improvement. The 'goatsex' around the outside rim of the image is an interesting idea. However, doing away with the original goatse images of giver and reciever, in favour of simple ASCII art, is an innovation too far in my humble opinion.

I'd file a bug report, on the site you posted, but am worried that it'll fall out again. Also, where's the change log? It seems it might have been a rather big one, plenty of people would like to see it.

This is the goatse equivalent of KDE4.0: incomplete, full of gaping holes, and not worth the download (just joking, I love KDE).

Do people trust this project anymore? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24221953)

With fears of a license change and close-sourcing, why shouldn't I buy some PostgreSQL documentation [amazon.com] and start learning to work with the other major project?

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24221975)

You imply that you use it, so I guess you must trust it to some degree. If you don't why are you still using it?

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (0)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222073)

I was going to say something to the effect of "In B4 PostgreSQL troll". Alas..

Every time an article mentions MySQL some asshat chimes in to support his/her favorite pet DB. Postgres seems to have the most vocal zealots, and I'm tired of it.

Please give it a rest.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (-1, Flamebait)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222107)

My favorite Pet DB is SQL Server, and the 2008 version is coming out in August YUM.

Oracle is o'tay too. MySql is a toy. Cue mods in 3, 2, 1...

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (-1, Flamebait)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222319)

Apparently some of those zealots have modpoints. Does that make you feel like a big man?

An overrated mod is only available because it makes people feel less childish than marking "-1: I disagree with this" or "-1: This offended me".

If you're gonna get pissy, at least mod me down with something meaningful.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24222859)

An overrated mod is only available because it makes people feel less childish than marking "-1: I disagree with this" or "-1: This offended me".

Well your original post was overrated, when it had a score of +2 Insightful.

I can't see anything Insightful about your original post, just whining. Let the moderation system do its work and stop bitching about it.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24223103)

When you see children playing in the street, almost getting hit by cars, pointing out their behavior is not zealotry.

Most PostgreSQL "zealots" are actually educating people that superior options exists; especially considering PostgreSQL's progress over the last couple of years.

So please, stop playing in the street and get your own ballpark known as PostgreSQL. ...and get off my lawn! ;P

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (2, Insightful)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 5 years ago | (#24223687)

Your response was condescending and presumptive. I never said I favored MySQL or any other DBMS for that matter. Your snotty little comment about playing in the street only reinforces my already negative view of Postgres zealots.

It doesn't matter how right you are about whatever it is. Like it or not, how you deliver your message is as important or more important than the message itself. This applies to just about anything: databases, operating systems, which end of a softboiled egg you eat first, and of course, politics.

You zealots have a lot in common with Ron Paul supporters. Any merit your cause might carry is completely nullified by the overwhelming nature of your enthusiasm.

I'm done now. I will never comment on this subject again, mainly because I'm tired of burning karma on ACs, but also because I know that nothing I say matters to anyone on either side.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24224905)

YHBT YHL HAND

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (4, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226529)

Your response was condescending and presumptive.

Your response is paranoid and childish. Sometimes you have to hear things you don't want to hear. The AC's response is actually funny and accurate. By in large, most MySQL users are children when it comes to relational databases. You don't have to be a PostgreSQL zealot to recognize that fact. Simple fact is, MySQL is the low rung on the SQL ladder. All DBAs worth respecting understand this simple fact. In other words, what you assume to be zealotry can just as likely be a factual statement by a knowledgeable person.

Just because you heard something you didn't want to hear doesn't mean it was delivered by a zealot. The fact that you're so easily confused by such a fact is a significant indicator the AC's comment was correctly targeted (you're too close) at you. Your response also implies you are in fact a MySQL zealot. Otherwise, why so easily offended by a comment which was obviously presented with levity, by an AC, in a trollish manner. Getting upset about that is just plain silly.

At the end of the day, with so many excellent relational databases available at zero or little cost, choosing MySQL as your database speaks poorly of you. Just about any database is better than MySQL. Imagine a friend bringing home a cheap Chinese made, Yamaha reproduction and declaring they are tired of "zealots" pointing out that better bikes exist. Well, your friend might be tired of hearing it, but it doesn't change the facts. It doesn't take a zealot to point out that bike is a complete PoS; and without regard to zealotry, better options exist. At least with a bike, you can defend such a purchase from a cost perspective. No such hand hold exists when it comes to the field of freely available databases; almost all of which are better than MySQL.

Lastly, please don't forget that one need only be knowledgeable about relational databases to dislike MySQL. Zealotry need not be a factor.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (1)

outZider (165286) | more than 5 years ago | (#24223145)

I think the only reason people post is because of how big of a deal people make MySQL... even though it's slow, unreliable, difficult to scale, and yet, people flock to it.

Yay, community, I guess.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24223343)

That's because MySQL switched from LGPL to GPL.
So there is a void to fill to use an open-source db in a proprietary app.

MySQL is in the same boat as QT.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24224551)

I was going to say something to the effect of "In B4 Windows troll". Alas..

Every time an article mentions Windows some asshat chimes in to support his/her favorite pet OS. Linux seems to have the most vocal zealots, and I'm tired of it.

Please give it a rest.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (5, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222553)

You haven't kept up. Sun stated that nothing was going to change with the license. The "closed source" portion had already been released under the gpl and Sun said it would stay that way. In Fact they just moved from the closed source bitkeeper to bazaar for source code control, allowing anyone to track their progress.

PostgreSQL is a fine Database as well. MySql just seems to be used more in web environments.

Re:Do people trust this project anymore? (4, Interesting)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 5 years ago | (#24223327)

It was interesting to see Sun's reaction.

Apparently, MySQL AB (prior to purchase) were the ones contemplating making the move to more proprietary tools. It was set in motion and left on the table, then Sun purchased them.

Sun basically said "We have no need to put this in play, we don't make our money from a single product like MySQL AB did .."

A lot of people Criticized Sun for the idea, however the idea was the brainstorm of MySQL AB, not Sun.

I'm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24221969)

first.

DataLossDB (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24222005)

I'm going to file my bug reports here [datalossdb.org] instead.

Hosting providers (2, Interesting)

Aminion (896851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222031)

Whenever I read about a new MySQL version, I think about all of the hosting out there that are still running 4.x. I understand that you can't simply upgrade to the latest version as it would mess up customers' applications, but how about offering customers different versions of MySQL? Is it really that hard to do? A growing collection of well designed web applications require MySQL 5.x and it sucks to miss out om them simply because your hosting provider isn't database flexible enough.

Re:Hosting providers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24222103)

You sure can upgrade in most cases, just make sure old_passwords is on.

Re:Hosting providers (5, Informative)

xiaomai (904921) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222657)

This isn't really true of an upgrade from Mysql 4.x -> 5.x. MySQL changed some things (notably their JOIN syntax) to make them more compliant with the ANSI standards. So assuming you're dealing w/ PHP/MySQL programmers that only knew the MySQL way to do joins, their applications may break on upgrade.

For more information, see the section entitled "Join Processing Changes" here:

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/join.html [mysql.com]

Re:Hosting providers (1)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222935)

assuming you're dealing w/ PHP/MySQL programmers that only knew the MySQL way to do joins, their applications may break on upgrade.

That's great!

Re:Hosting providers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24224325)

Yes, and that also means the applications are old and probably don't work with PHP5. They may also have security holes. Force upgrade.

Re:Hosting providers (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222199)

Yeah... I dunno... I mean, same server, different port? It's nice to use the default port for your applications. Or different servers?

Remember back when we had to do http://www.someplace.com:8080 [someplace.com] ?

Pretty annoying. Of course, it's just one variable or setting in a decent app.

My first concern, when I read this, was about the license. Wasn't there some kerfuffle about Sun buying them?

Re:Hosting providers (2, Informative)

mattmcm (1143125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222543)

1and1 allow you to choose both 4 and 5. You choose the version when creating a database on their management page. I don't know about other webhosts, though.

Re:Hosting providers (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226603)


1and1 had the worst support and worst financial services department I have ever experienced. I had an extremly bad experience with them and I warn people of them at every opportunity. You're okay with them so long as everything goes by the book. Once you pick up the phone it goes to Hell in a big way. I'm with Fasthosts now who offer MySQL 5.0 by default and then of course there's getting your own server if you really need it. It's pretty cheap as a business cost.

Re:Hosting providers (3, Interesting)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 5 years ago | (#24223235)

Hosting providers that are worth their weight will typically use external MySQL (clusters) and offer various versions. They've learned the painful lesson that running a bunch of over-allocating services that are open to the world on one box only leads to customers canceling due to down time.

For instance, the $20 I pay a month gets me access to 4.x and 5.x, each version being its own shared cluster.

Re:Hosting providers (1)

SamSim (630795) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225145)

I think about all of the hosting out there that are still running 4.x.

Hah. I recently discovered that my workplace was actually running MySQL 3.x, which is such an old release that it doesn't even support structured queries. "MyQL", I call it.

Re:Hosting providers (2, Interesting)

pixr99 (560799) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226127)

A growing collection of well designed web applications require MySQL 5.x

Let me start by saying that I agree with you. It would be great if hosting providers could give us a bit more choice.

Now I'd like to disagree with just the bit of your statement that I've quoted. By definition, a "well designed" web application can never *require* MySQL 5.x. Well designed web application have abstraction layers and don't care whether you use MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite and so on. If web programmers built a proper abstraction layer into their apps, they could support MySQL x.y along with all the other versions of MySQL with little added effort.

Re:Hosting providers (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226419)

Now I'd like to disagree with just the bit of your statement that I've quoted. By definition, a "well designed" web application can never *require* MySQL 5.x.

Well, I think that's kind of silly. The whole reason of using a later version is to take advantage of features that aren't available in earlier versions. That means that you don't have to code those features into the app -- for instance, you don't have to write a complex query into your app; you can just select from a view in MySQL*. But if you're going to allow usage of earlier versions, you will have to write that complex query in code anyway.

If you're going that far, why not just write a complete, self-contained storage back-end into your web-app, so you don't have to require MySQL at all?

* I'm not sure that views aren't supported in 4.x, I was just using a good example.

Re:Hosting providers (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226207)

Whenever I read about a new MySQL version, I think about all of the hosting out there that are still running 4.x.

most of our customer sites have 3.x/4.x/5.x available. this has never been a problem. maybe your experiences differ from mine.

Actually... (2, Informative)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226659)

...The only thing that really "breaks" from 4 > 5 is database permissions.

And most (all?) shared hosting are handling permissions at their admin level by necessity.

The first time I did this upgrade, probably 2005 or so, I was genuinely surprised at how painless it is.

And the pain-points that are left are SO worth it. MySQL 4 is a toy. It's worse than Access.

And we're not just talking about the lack of "advanced" features like triggers, sprocs, udf's. We're talking about no support for things like nested SELECT's. It's atrocious. The query optimizer is absurd. IIRC, there is actually a performance difference if you join in the WHERE clause opposed to an explicit join in the FROM clause. Now, I'm all for "proper" sql, meaning joins SHOULD be explicit. But the fact is that this query:

select u.fullname, p.phonenumber from users u inner join phonenumbers p on u.userid = p.userid

is logically identical to:

select u.fullname, p.phonenumber from users u, phonenumbers p where u.userid = p.userid

and for a query optimizer to create a different query plan for them is just inexcusable.

MySQL 4 is the reason so many people think poorly of the DB.

XML Functions (3, Interesting)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222061)

First release with native XML functions. If there's indexing behind some of the XPath, this could be a very interesting release indeed.

I'd definitely be interested to hear what it's also missing that more XML aware databases include, though.

Re:XML Functions (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222191)

well, since this is MySQl, the xml functions are probably missing atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability :-)

So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1, Funny)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222149)

I'm still waiting for data partitioning from Postgres. Maybe once they get it it will be a real database. ;)

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222297)

Ill call that bluf. You mean the partitioning that MySQL has had for a couple of years? That partitioning?
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/partitioning.html

WTF? (1)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222367)

Read grandparent post again, then decide whether or not your reply makes any sense at all.

Methinks you are too used to seeing Postgres trolls in the MySQL posts to catch the joke. Apparently the mods are, too.

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222375)

Guess speaking ill of Postgres is not welcome here.

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222461)

I guess not. Oh well, at least I amuse myself. And apparently there is one mod out there somewhere who thinks I'm funny [slashdot.org] .

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226041)

It was funny, but I would so dearly love to see partitioning in Postgres. Your post just made me smile, then feel sad.

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (3, Informative)

landonf (905751) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222635)

I'm unfamiliar with MySQL's partitioning -- is it radically different from postgresql's partitioning [postgresql.org] ?

I'm using inheritance to implement table partitioning with a rather large (50+ gig) PostgreSQL/PostGIS database. Constraint exclusion [postgresql.org] allows the query planner to use CHECK constraints to avoid even looking at tables where conditions contradict the constraints.

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226071)

Stuff like that is why, as much as I love Postgres, it isn't replacing Oracle any time soon. Not when things like partitioning are called for.

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

EvilRyry (1025309) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226219)

Care to explain? I've found PostgreSQL's partitioning to work quite well for every situation I've run into.

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226483)

It's a bunch of different tables with contstraints and triggers that need to be created and managed manually. I thought it was self-explanatory.

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226607)

<I>Stuff like that is why, as much as I love Postgres, it isn't replacing Oracle any time soon. Not when things like partitioning are called for.</I>

Hate to burst your bubble but PostgreSQL is displacing Oracle on the low end. Maybe not in droves but it is happening. Also, the author didn't say that partitioning is required to support his application. Partitioning can make for significant performance gains. After all, why move data you don't need 90% of the time. And if your query planner is smart enough to understand this fact, it makes for a win/win; smarter query plans and potentially huge wins on I/O. Both of which translate to better scaling databases/applications.

You seem to imply Oracle is better because you're wasting I/O moving data you rarely need. That position doesn't make sense to me.

Re:So will Postgres ever catch MySQL? (1)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226811)

I'm unfamiliar with MySQL's partitioning -- is it radically different from postgresql's partitioning?

Yes, it is radically different. MySQL has partitioning [mysql.com] , PostgreSQL does not.

I'm using inheritance to implement table partitioning with a rather large (50+ gig) PostgreSQL/PostGIS database. Constraint exclusion allows the query planner to use CHECK constraints to avoid even looking at tables where conditions contradict the constraints.

That's not partitioning, that's an ugly hack that will save you some I/O.

I've hacked a million systems... (0, Offtopic)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222207)

...and I rocked 'em all!

Re:I've hacked a million systems... (1)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222221)

God damn it. How did I post that to the wrong article?

Re:I've hacked a million systems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24222835)

God damn it. How did I post that to the wrong article?

Cause your a noob poster. :-)

Re:I've hacked a million systems... (1)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#24223273)

God damn it. How did I post that to the wrong article?

Tabbed browsing strikes again!

Re:I've hacked a million systems... (1)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 5 years ago | (#24223379)

God damn it. How did I post that to the wrong article?

Tabbed browsing strikes again!

And beer had nothing to do with it? :)

nice feature set (4, Insightful)

RelliK (4466) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222255)

Traditionally, that is to say, up until MySQL 5.1.22, InnoDB handled newly inserted records into an InnoDB table with an AUTO_INCREMENT column by using a global counter which held the last value for the auto-incrementing column. A lock would be placed on this counter for the duration of the SQL statement which did the inserting...
The new server variable, innodb_autoinc_lock_mode controls how InnoDB treats statements which insert rows into an InnoDB table with an AUTO_INCREMENT column. Depending on your environment â" specifically, whether you are using the binlog for replication or recovery purposes and whether you are executing "batched insert" statementsâ" you can set this variable to 0, 1, or 2. 0 corresponds to the traditional mode, and is not recommended except for very specific scenarios (see the doc link above). 1 represents "consecutive mode" and is the default. In this mode, only statements where InnoDB cannot determine the number of rows to be inserted will use the global auto-increment lock. All other "simple insert" statements (even those inserting multiple records in batch mode) will use a faster, lighter locking mechanism, which results in significant scalability increases. The final setting, 2, represents an "interleaved" mode and has even greater scalability improvements, but cannot be used in scenarios where the binary log is being used for recovery or statement-based replication.

So now mysql can handle two concurrent inserts? Nice! Except for the fact that this new amazing option is incompatible with replication. MySQL is going to become a real database. Any time now...

Re:nice feature set (5, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222503)

Not exactly. 5.1 introduces row based replication as opposed to the statement based replication that is incompatible with the new behavior. Statement based replication has the slaves execute the exact same statement on the slave. Row based just passes the new values of the modification to the slave.

Thanks for the correction (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224691)

And anyone who likes to bitch about MySQL deserves an Oracle bill. MySQL (et al) might not be perfect but they are open (improve it) and free (yay I can afford to pay for support *and* still pay for hardware and development!).

Re:Thanks for the correction (4, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225853)

And anyone who likes to bitch about MySQL deserves an Oracle bill.

Or they could use Postgres...

Re:Thanks for the correction (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226129)

yeah - that's asinine, jumping from mysql to oracle. and frankly, there are some things that only a product like oracle can do. but between mysql and oracle there are many open and closed solutions.

Re:nice feature set (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224985)

I Like.

Interleaved autoincrement + row(value)-based replication == multimaster write.

Just interleave your autoincrements by the number of masters (still a max of 2?), and have master 1 start at 1, master 2 start at 2 and so on.

Re:nice feature set (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24224519)

How about we fix the obvious too? This bug [mysql.com] makes it impossible to have an Insert trigger and an update trigger both updating a table. Trying to do so triggers database duplicate keys because there isn't a good lock on the auto-inc value.

A bug, marked as serious and yet left pending since Feb'07 !

Re:nice feature set (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24226141)

A bug, marked as serious and yet left pending since Feb'07 !

Perhaps they can't magically fix all serious bugs simultaneously by doing a fucking raindance, and just maybe there is more than 18 months worth of work involved in fixing all the serious bugs that are more serious than your pet bug.

Re:nice feature set (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226767)

"Consecutive mode" sounds like it does the trick though, it determines how many rows you are inserting and makes room for them so other insertions can be made at the same time can be inserted early and be marked as row # after the mass insert. This essentially allows multiple inserts at the same time because it only has to make space for the insert via adding 1 to the increment for the next insert. As long as the slaves support the same feature everything will be fine as the results are deterministic. Only the interleave system is non deterministic but it warned you, this is not for master/slave systems. Its not set by default to interleave and generally not a recommended setup unless you have just a single DB and you want the best speed possible.

Latest MySQL GA "Community" Source Tarballs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24222609)

The links to the MySQL GA "Community" source on MySQL Developer Zone are still stuck at 5.0.51b. I understand that MySQL is no longer providing binaries of the "Community Edition". But the least they can do is provide an easy to find and accessible link to the latest source tarball (now at 5.0.62).

Re:Latest MySQL GA "Community" Source Tarballs (1)

headLITE (171240) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224665)

No, that's not true. Sun provides binaries of MySQL *5.0* every half year. 5.0.51a/b was in January so I'd expect the next set pretty soon now.

Sun has also been providing binaries of 5.1 for quite some time now.

List of demands (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24223041)

Until MySQL supports the following it is useless to me. This list isn't really that big or unreasonable.

Some form of UPDATE FROM or MERGE INTO. The cheese filled workarounds and self-ref limitations are unacceptable.

Stored procedures (/w plan cache), triggers and foreign keys that all work togeather without having to jump through hoops.

An ODBC driver with a **sane** quoting regime.

Some resembalnce of intelligent behavior in the query optimizer.

Re:List of demands (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224139)

hmm.. Yeah, After looking at the MERGE INTO issue I understand what you are talking about. There really isn't anything equivalent in MySql, despite the wikipedia article's claim to the contrary. The MySql alternative listed there INSERT .. ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE only works if a duplicate key would be created. There are situations I am dealing with right now that show the limitations of that approach. I'll talk with my people and see if I can't come up with an equivalent solution.

On the other hand, the MERGE INTO can lead to so complex of a statement, it seems like a magnet for deadlocks, if not properly used. Foreign Key's are going Storage Engine Independent in 6.0. I know what you're referring to with the stored procedures/ triggers thing. I'm of the anti stored procedure school this month anyway, but if I weren't I could see how that could be an issue.

MySQL payments - anyone forced yet? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24223055)

Does anyone know of anyone whom MySQL has forced to pay them for their database?

Re:MySQL payments - anyone forced yet? (1)

headLITE (171240) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224675)

How would that work, seeing as it is explicitly allowed to use the free version for any purpose?

Re:MySQL payments - anyone forced yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24226093)

There is no 'free' version.
For Open Source Projects:

        * If you are developing and distributing open source applications under the GPL License, then you are free to use MySQL under the GPL License. More Info Â
        * If you are developing and distributing open source applications under an OSI-Approved License, but not the GPL, MySQL provides the GPL License with a FLOSS Exception. More Info Â

Now, I know of some people who are not licencing their code in an open source way - therefore they should be paying. Any yet, have not - making the same mistake as headLITE.

Re:MySQL payments - anyone forced yet? (1)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225949)

No one who's been forced to, but we have a support contract for our primary DB server.

That gets us binaries compiled with Intel's compiler (about a 20% performance boost I think), and a shoulder to cry on should anything go wrong.

Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (4, Interesting)

level4 (1002199) | more than 5 years ago | (#24223905)

I would like to use MySQL instead of Postgres - it's easier for me to install, maintain, and just plain understand. I don't like how PG does things a lot of the time and find it needlessly complex. But because MySQL lacks the seemingly basic ability to store a timestamp with better than second accuracy, I can't, because I have to store log events which are often more than one a second - much more - and I need to know exactly when. Milliseconds would be fine, microseconds would be great.

MySQL currently recommends some ridiculous hack where you strip the sub-second information from the time you send it and store it in another column, then write some kind of view which combines them back. What? I am not doing that to implement what I consider to be basic functionality! Do you remember how my motivation for switching is because I want things to be simple? Writing weird multi-column time recombination hacks is not my idea of simple.

Replication improvements, XML parsing, great features all - but please just give us timestamps with accuracy better than a second? A lot can and does happen in less than a second and I need to be able to log it with accuracy!

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24223971)

Use a double and store the timestamp yourself?

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (1)

level4 (1002199) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224237)

Use a double and store the timestamp yourself?

Yeah, great solution. So now I have to implement readers and writers in every application that accesses that DB. Want to search in a date range? I need to write something to generate a query using the custom time storage, and then to re-convert the results on data return .. basically I'm writing my own driver. In multiple languages. That makes the custom view seem like an elegant, simple solution.

Or, MySQL could just support subsecond timestamps in the common format like everyone else. How hard can it be?!

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226393)

Use a double and store the timestamp yourself?

Yeah, great solution. So now I have to implement readers and writers in every application that accesses that DB.

couldn't you write a stored procedure for all that?

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (4, Informative)

Unordained (262962) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224239)

If you're going to switch databases over the issue, you might as well consider other options, like Firebird: it's also free, I do believe the timestamps have better-than-second precision (at the very least it insists on showing me 4 extra digits I never use for anything), and it's certainly easier to install, setup, and admin than PostgreSQL (IMO). It has limitations, of course, and you should be careful to read the fine print, as you would with any product selection. I would worry that you're using some particularly esoteric features of PostgreSQL that won't translate well to Firebird, but if MySQL is even an option for you, that's highly unlikely.

Slashdot declined to carry the story I posted on it (yeah, yeah, grousing...), but Firebird 2.1 (release) came out three months ago, with some really nifty features like on-commit triggers that let you enforce constraints no other database will help you enforce (that I've seen -- Oracle certainly won't.) It rocks.

Your mileage WILL vary, but I'd recommend at least checking it out. Either http://www.ibphoenix.com/ [ibphoenix.com] or http://www.firebirdsql.org/ [firebirdsql.org] .

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (2, Informative)

level4 (1002199) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225133)

I have checked out Firebird in the past and it looks great - but there's a huge chicken and egg problem. Basically, to adopt a DB requires that it be supported in the languages I use - and for scripting this kind of thing I use Ruby. I can't find any firebird support, native or otherwise, for Ruby, let alone support in the more high-level libraries like ActiveRecord or DataMapper.

I'm not trying to put down the project - it looks great. But I can't possibly afford the time or resources to develop all my own libraries from scratch. That might sound selfish, like I'm all take and no give, and expect everything to be packaged nicely just for me - but I don't think so, I contribute where I can. I just can't do that kind of thing alone. I have deadlines and a budget, and to try to trailblaze a new path supporting a newish, as-yet pretty obscure DB would be suicidal.

If firebird really pans out and becomes a (widely accepted) viable alternative to the "majors" I will be there contributing patches and doing what I can. But I can't be the lone crusader who starts down that path. To be brutally honest, judging from past experience, it will probably have to be the developers themselves who start that ball rolling.

For now, the path of least resistance for me (and MANY others) is to stick with PGSQL. Changing DBs is not the big deal you might think, since I have access to all the above-mentioned tools - I could change to MySQL in just a few hours of work (and then a few more hours for the imports to finish/propogate!), just like I switched to PGSQL when MySQL's timestamp limitation became a big problem. No big deal, and I generally keep everything DB-agnostic. Switching to an unsupported (by my favourite libraries) database would be a very big deal, however, and I just don't have the resources, or - frankly - a good enough reason.

Thanks for the suggestion though and I will definitely keep an eye on the project.

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24225863)

Can't you use a generic database interface layer like unixODBC or equivalent?

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24226031)

Basically, to adopt a DB requires that it be supported in the languages I use - and for scripting this kind of thing I use Ruby.

Whoa, stop! That's your problem, right there.

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225187)

features like on-commit triggers that let you enforce constraints no other database will help you enforce (that I've seen -- Oracle certainly won't.)

Oracle has deferrable constraints, that are checked on commit, and you can do almost everything you would do with an on commit trigger with deferrable constraints.
Postgresql has deferrable triggers, that trigger on commit, and that's probably the same feature you call "on commit trigger" in firebird.

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226143)

triggers are straight from hell. and there isn't anything firebird has that you can't get in oracle. i spend a good part of my day hating oracle sometimes, but it isn't because the product lacks features, or options.

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (1)

rebootconrad (836537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225111)

Have you not considered using a double with unix timestamps (with microseconds) generated by whatever script is inserting the data? It's essentially the same thing as a native timestamp assuming you don't need anything pre-1970..

Re:Yeah, but does it have sub second Timestamps? (1)

level4 (1002199) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225219)

Yeah, I've considered that and even played around with it a bit. But my goal here is to reduce complexity, and implementing that kind of solution (for multiple apps in multiple languages) would have the exact opposite effect. It's far easier to simply stick with PGSQL.

My enemy is complexity and vendor lock-in, in any form. Implementing the custom MySQL view would be 1 step forward (ease of administration) and two steps back (custom config). Doing what you suggest would be one step forward, 10 steps back and would require pervasive code and library changes!

I'm all for hacking around problems I find and then sharing them for others to use - I've released many patches and how-tos to allow Ruby on Rails to use UUIDs as its primary keys, for example. But there's also the consideration of whether something *should* be hacked around and papered over. I am personally of the opinion that nobody, including me, should be forced to come up with low-level workarounds to what I consider to be basic functionality holes in MySQL. The work of supporting sub-second timestamps is by all rights MySQL's job. Everyone else does it and I can't for the life of me understand why they haven't.

So that's my reasoning - I am sure some will disagree, but I hope I've made a fairly rational argument.

Sorry I switched to BSD licensed PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24224373)

Sorry I switched to BSD licensed PostgreSQL.

Triggers (4, Interesting)

iron-kurton (891451) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224385)

The only thing that I look forward to in 5.1 is the addition of triggers for non-root users. I've fought many a battles with hosting providers wanting to charge me upwards of $120/hr to put my triggers in place as root because MySQL didn't allow regular users to run it.

Now, finding a hosting service willing to upgrade to 5.1 within a year after it's released is going to be a new bat

Re:Triggers (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225439)

If you're that much of a "power user", you might just get yourself a virtual or dedicated server and do whatever you want without the hassle.

Re:Triggers (1)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 5 years ago | (#24225965)

He could, but then he's also got to manage that server, instead of doing his real job.

A managed server is probably the best bet, but they cost big money for anything useful, and you'll probably get some salesman trying to sell you an entire "solution", instead of just what you wanted.

Re:Triggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24226147)

Or he could simply use a shared server that gives each user its own database instance, so he has access to the root user account. Mine costs an astronomical £5 a month...

Re:Triggers (3, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226181)

In life, you have choices:

a. get what you're given
b. get what you pay for.

choose one, and never complain because you can't mix and match.

Re:Triggers (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24226733)

Since when does using a fricken trigger make one a "power user."

Honestly, if I were running a hosting provider, I wouldn't allow triggers just because they slow everything down so much.

I mean, I use them often, but it's very easy to murder server performance by trying to do too much in a trigger (or doing it poorly).

IIRC, the MySQL docs say that the most simple trigger adds a 10% overhead.

version names (3, Funny)

Aggrav8d (683620) | more than 5 years ago | (#24224481)

Bah! I misread as "for a final RC for the MySQL 5.1 server, Monty Widenius" and thought it was the latest version name, like Hardy Heron or Fallacious Ferret or Mr. Ed or something.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...