×

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!

Slimmed Down MySQL Offshoot Drizzle is Built For the Web

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the now-it-can-be-told dept.

Databases 370

Incon writes "Builder AU reports that Brian Aker, MySQL's director of architecture, has unveiled Drizzle, a database project aimed at powering websites with massive concurrency as well as trimming superfluous functionality from MySQL. Drizzle will have a micro-kernel architecture with code being removed from the Drizzle core and moved through interfaces into modules. Aker has already selected particular functionality for removal: modes, views, triggers, prepared statements, stored procedures, query cache, data conversion inserts, access control lists and some data types."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

370 comments

anotherwards, MySQL 3.x... (4, Insightful)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302703)

Back to a glorified (but uber-fast) filesystem it looks like.

Re:anotherwards, MySQL 3.x... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24302899)

That's "in other words", retard.

Shnizzle (2, Funny)

kjorn (687709) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303061)

You shnizzle dude, wizzle on my dizzle, like totally gansta. I is gunna pop a cap up your arse.

Hey, I'm English and this is how all Americans talk on the telly ;-)

Re:Shnizzle (4, Funny)

captainjaroslav (893479) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303389)

Dude, we would never say "arse."

Re:Shnizzle (1)

kjorn (687709) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303433)

Gentlemen, answer me this, why a hat up an arse anyway?

Captain: yeah, it's called irony. I get the lingo wrong thus providing self depreciating humour ;-)

Re:Shnizzle (4, Funny)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303611)

Your humour depreciates? I guess I'll have to check this thread out in a year or two to see if it's still funny.

Re:Shnizzle (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303693)

Maybe they think that shoving a hat up some one's butt will be a type of forced irony? Kinda' like hanging shoes over their ears? I really don't understand people on this planet.

Re:Shnizzle (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303435)

You shnizzle dude, wizzle on my dizzle, like totally gansta. I is gunna pop a cap up your arse.

Hey, I'm English and this is how all Americans talk on the telly ;-)

No, Ali G [wikipedia.org] is played by a Brit. ;-)

Cheers

Re:anotherwards, MySQL 3.x... (3, Insightful)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303635)

Of course I haven't RTFA, but what I gather from the summary is simply that they'll be removing these features from the core and making them accessible from modules. Why is that wrong? If you don't use prepared statements in your web application, you don't need to have them in your database server. Unless I missed something...

Love the lack of Windows support ! (-1, Troll)

iXiXi (659985) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302755)

"According to the Drizzle FAQ, the database will be licensed under the GPLv2 and be available on Linux and OS X platforms. Aker stated that he is unwilling to support platforms without a proper GNU toolchain, such as Windows." Get on board MS! Why would anyone in their right mind set up a Web/SQL platform using MS products?

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (5, Funny)

hostyle (773991) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302873)

Why would anyone in their right mind set up a Web/SQL platform using MS products?

My name is Maximus Decimus^W^WBill Gates, ex-commander of the Armies of Redmond, General of the MS Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Steve Ballmer. Father of a murdered operating system. Husband of a bloated Office Productivity Suite. I shall have my vengeance, in this web or the next.

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (1)

kahei (466208) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303053)

It's the lack of Windows support that *particularly* suggests that this is all Sun's strategy for spreading InnoDB... ...with a couple of MySQL devs along for the ride either because they have no choice or because Sun stroked their egos.

Clever Sun. Now all they need is a server platform :D

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303113)

Why would anyone in their right mind set up a Web/SQL platform using MS products?

You'd be surprised. Our web team recently got on an "I love MS!" kick for some reason. They'd been on Linux for years but a lot of the new/shinny buzzword stuff that they wished to install wanted Active Directory, IIS, and other non-sense. Because the Linux setup didn't lend itself well to installing all that proprietary stuff, and because they convinced themselves (somehow) that the most popular software is always the most insecure anyways (so Apache being the most popular webserver is the most insecure), they switched to Windows + IIS (+MySQL, but SQL Server is being pushed hard) to host the website.

Now I've even had pressure to convert my servers from Linux to Windows where possible to "standardize".

On a more on-topic note though, I'm not sure where this leaves MySQL itself. As a "real" database, it naturally can't compare to SQL Server or Oracle, but even competing in the free segment, PostgreSQL blows it away. Traditionally MySQL was just the toy database for non-critical stuff that you wanted speed out of (and little else). If Drizzle accomplishes that, then I don't see a real place for the mainline MySQL anymore. Drizzle if you want speed, PostgreSQL if you want features/stability, and Oracle if you gots money to spend.

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303515)

The thing is, is that not everybody needs a full ACID compliant transactional database. All that stuff tends to slow down the whole database. It would be much nicer for many people to just have a simple non-transactional database. Think about how many web apps are out there that don't use transactions, and have not need for them. Many applications would benefit from increased speed over increased transactional capabilities.

On another note, what's with the lack of hosting services providing PostgreSQL? I would love to use it, at least for some projects, but the fact that it's not available on many hosts makes it quite a hard decision to make. I don't want to pick up another hosting provider, or switch over all my stuff just to use a different database.

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (5, Insightful)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303751)

Traditionally MySQL was just the toy database for non-critical stuff that you wanted speed out of (and little else). If Drizzle accomplishes that, then I don't see a real place for the mainline MySQL anymore. Drizzle if you want speed, PostgreSQL if you want features/stability, and Oracle if you gots money to spend.

The thing that people always seem to discount when comparing MySQL to PostgreSQL is community mindshare and comfort level. That's why it's called a LAMP stack. If products always won on technical merits, 90% of PCs would run OS/2 instead of Windows.

I'll admit, even though I "know" that PG is supposed to be a better database, anytime I'm starting a new web app I go for MySQL. It's what most of the frameworks and toolkits support first and/or best. It's what more tech support guys at the web hosting companies are familiar with. Plus MySQL has *much* better GUI tools than PG.

If both products were starting from scratch, then yeah maybe PG would have a good shot. But MySQL isn't bad enough, and PG isn't better enough, to make me or others like me feel like switching. I'm not comfortable with the PG toolset because I'm not familiar with it, and I have better things to do with my time than learn it, because for me the perceived potential benefit isn't worth it.

Of course, none of this is to say that Sun won't f*ck up MySQL enough to make me change my mind...

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (5, Insightful)

nvivo (739176) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303145)

Why would anyone in their right mind set up a Web/SQL platform using MS products?

Because it is reliable, easy to develop, implement and support?

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (1, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303463)

Dude, I want what you are smoking!

Seriously? Windows? Reliable? Easy to develop for(Nothing without a decent command line is "easy to develop for in my book) for? Easy to implement? Windows management tools are a joke compared to mac, and Linux has tons of really good tools that kick the crap out of the amalgam of XP tools that are functionally useless, confusing as hell, and ugly as sin to boot. Easy to support? Have you ever tried to repair a registry? Not fun.

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (3, Funny)

Stellian (673475) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303723)

Because it is reliable, easy to develop, implement and support?

Neah, that can't be it.

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (1)

ericlondaits (32714) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303501)

I normally develop on a WAMP stack (WAMP = Windows + Apache + MySQL + PHP) specially built for developers that can be set up very quickly through an installer. After the site is done I can move it almost seamlessly to a LAMP stack. I also have a VMWare with Ubuntu set up for any cases in which I need an actual LAMP... but I hardly ever need it... which is good, since it hogs much more resources (quite a chunk of RAM) and is slower to boot up. So... Drizzle not being supported under windows sucks.

Re:Love the lack of Windows support ! (2, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303539)

Get on board MS! Why would anyone in their right mind set up a Web/SQL platform using MS products?

Because, despite your prejudice, there is a business case for it. And business wins over OS zealotry. Besides, it is open source. Someone who is able to exercise common sense will simply port it to Windows.

And stop telling me what platform I should use for my apps, darn it! I don't see your time and money here in front of me doing the work, so stfu and just give me the tools that will get the job done.

OS Zealots are worse than spammers.

Me too (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303577)

Seriously, when I saw that views were likely to be cut I was going to ignore this product. But a line like that gets me onboard.

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft, but that's only 'cause I don't make hiring decisions. Yet.

Great, even more insecure web apps (5, Insightful)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302781)

This is stupid. Removing prepared statements and access control lists? Don't we have enough trouble with people writing insecure web apps when we provide them with the tools easily make them secure?

Re:Great, even more poor data relationships (1)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303019)

Throw out Triggers???

Junk-in and Junk-out with bloat code on top trying to validate and synchronize very thing.

I guess it the '70s all over again.

Re:Great, even more poor data relationships (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24303763)

Throw out Triggers???

Stop being racist you stupid American cunt

Re:Great, even more insecure web apps (1)

bingo_cannon (779085) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303155)

The summary says they're being moved into modules, so I'm guessing you can always load them at startup. PS: I didn't RTFA, did you?

Re:Great, even more insecure web apps (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303475)

From the FAQ:

"No modes, views, triggers, prepared statements, stored procedures, query cache, data conversion inserts, ACL. Fewer data types. Less engines, less code. "

So yes they're going to a module type system, but it says flat out these things are removed entirely.

And I agree with the first comment. We already had this, its called MySQL 3.

Re:Great, even more insecure web apps (5, Interesting)

bingo_cannon (779085) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303573)

Umm..errrr! Drizzle will have a micro-kernel architecture with code being removed from the Drizzle core and moved through interfaces into modules. Akers has already selected particular functionality for removal: modes, views, triggers, prepared statements, stored procedures, query cache, data conversion inserts, access control lists and some data types."

Re:Great, even more insecure web apps (1)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303771)

Others have already covered this, but the article does say "removed". It is entirely likely that you're correct and they're being moved rather than completely removed and it's just not the best wording, though.

In either case, I think it's stupid. That is functionality that I believe should be in the core code. There's very little reason to not want to be using that functionality in a web app.

Re:Great, even more insecure web apps (2, Funny)

mgmatrix (539969) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303401)

Moved != Removed. The functionality in question is being moved into a modulee..

Drizzle? (5, Funny)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302803)

Fo' shizzle!

Re:Drizzle? (5, Funny)

krkhan (1071096) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302957)

In other news, PostgreSQL releases sprinkle, SQLite releases Rivulet while Oracle defies all conventions and releases Hailstorm.

Microsoft, of course, was busy "revolutionizing" the look-n-feel of MS Access.

Re:Drizzle? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24303035)

What 17 or 60 year-old idiot modded this troll?

No views?! (4, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302851)

I can't imagine what logical reason there is for removing views, unless queries are removed too. Then I'd see where he's really going with this.

And removing stored procedures seems to be more accomidating to the way developers actually write rather than the way they should. Just think how great it will be when all of the processing on every web page is done by php rather than in the database!

Re:No views?! (3, Interesting)

ghoti (60903) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303365)

Which is exactly what the majority of CMSs do today. They treat the DB as dumb storage, and make very little use of its capabilities.

Re:No views?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24303493)

That's because, compared to other databases, MySQL is dumb storage.

A lot of people think MySQL is great, but a lot of these same people have never worked on a "real" database that provides true ACID compliance, has powerful stored procedures, and instead of providing too many choices only have sensible options that all preserve data integrity.

Re:No views?! (4, Funny)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303749)

Which has the unfortunate side effect of making the application portable across DBMS's.

I'm just sayin'...

Re:No views?! (1)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303423)

"Just think how great it will be when all of the processing on every web page is done by php rather than in the database!"

I don't have to imagine that, you insensitive clod. Thanks for remembering me about what a messed-up crap my inherited code-base is.

Oh man. (4, Interesting)

Hero Zzyzzx (525153) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302857)

One man's "superfluous" is another man's key feature. No views? No prepared statements? Holy carp. Isn't MySQL crippled enough as it is?

At first glance it's hard for me to see where Drizzle would fit where SQLite doesn't.

Re:Oh man. (3, Interesting)

ricebowl (999467) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303391)

I realise that this is hugely off topic, but is there any chance anyone can highlight the benefits of prepared/stored statements? I've been trying to read around on the subject but it seems to be hard to pin down the benefits, and then I come across this: http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql/stored-procedures-are-evil.html [tonymarston.net] , which offers an insight, but seems moderately biased against it "because he's never bothered with it yet, why bother with it now. And get off my lawn!"

Thanks for any help with this...

Re:Oh man. (2, Interesting)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303637)

It's rather hard to do a successful SQL injection attack against a prepared statement. It's not trivial to validate your inputs so as to avoid an SQL injection attack without them. That is IMO the number one reason for using them.

Re:Oh man. (2, Insightful)

ricebowl (999467) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303673)

I don't want to sound ungrateful, but is that the only reason? I accept that having one more secured web-server in the world is a righteous goal, and ethical too, but I was expecting rather more pros than just the one (albeit an important one).

Thanks though, much appreciated. =)

Re:Oh man. (4, Informative)

corbettw (214229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303651)

One of the big reasons they're popular is security. Without stored procedures, to allow a program (or the programmer who wrote it) access to a given data set, you'd have to grant it SELECT privileges on the table(s) containing that data. With a stored procedure, you just grant it permission to run that procedure, which might only return a subset of the data in the table(s).

Quick example: you have two tables, employees and employee_reviews. The employee table contains a unique ID, the employee's name, their salary, their start date, and other data. The employee_reviews has a foreign key linked to the employee's unique ID, the score for their latest review, and the text of the review. Without using stored procedures, to provide access to a given program to display the employee's name and the text of the review, it would need SELECT access on both tables; that exposes the employee's salary, which (we'll assume for this example) violates company policy.

With a stored procedure, though, you don't have this dilemma. The procedure would just select the appropriate columns and return them. This protects the employee's privacy and abiding by company policies.

Re:Oh man. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303663)

I can understand getting rid of stored procedures. But I can't see why you would get rid of prepared statements. It's the only reliable way to ensure you don't have SQL injection holes. With mysql_real_escape_string_we_mean_it_this_time, there's always a chance that you'll leave it out, or that someone will find some weird unicode string that will break it and allow an attack. If you used prepared statements, it completely removes the ability from someone to "forget" to put it in, unless they forget to use prepared statements altogether. It also removes the possibility of sql injection, because the values are sent separately from the command.

Re:Oh man. (4, Informative)

hanshotfirst (851936) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303735)

Prepared Statements:
* You can avoid SQL injection (improved security)
* You can use "bind variables" (improved DB performance, improved security - see above)

Stored Procedures:
* You can write a transaction API in the database, and leave all that "ghastly" SQL out of your Java/PHP/languageOfChoice.
* Your data will outlive the cool-hip-language-of-the-day. Keeping that transaction API in the database means you don't have to rewrite all the data access/business rules when you want to change languages for your application.
There are more reasons, but these are the big ones.

Re:Oh man. (1)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303779)

Protection against SQL injection, better application performance are the two I know of. I can imagine that you would get some additional exception handling possibilities in some cases as well.

Re:Oh man. (4, Insightful)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303537)

At first glance it's hard for me to see where Drizzle would fit where SQLite doesn't.

Anywhere you need concurrent access - SQLite is not designed as a high performance database, it's designed as a simple to implement, single file database.

So it's like SQLite... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24302887)

...reinvented, but with security flaws. Awesome!

Re:So it's like SQLite... (1)

spud603 (832173) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303513)

well, no. having not read tfa, it seems like drizzle is going for concurrency, which was never sqlite's strong point.

Removing Query Cache? (2, Insightful)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302889)

Uh, doesn't removing the query cache run counter to the goals of making it fast?

Re:Removing Query Cache? (2, Informative)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303013)

Well yes and no. I have always told people never to use query cache except when they absolutely need it as it can quickly become overused. But it is extremely useful for small amounts of data that don't change often but get called ALOT! And without it, you are correct, it is definitely something that will be sorely missed by people who know what they are doing.

Re:Removing Query Cache? (1)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303455)

How exactly do you overuse a query cache? I mean, the more use of the cache, the better, no?

Query caches on my machines ( with an approximate read:write ratio of 20:1 ) get hit about 88% of the time. That's a pretty major speed enhancement, I can tell you that, coming from 3.23 only a few years ago.

Re:Removing Query Cache? (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303557)

I agree on most of the advice you give, especially in light of the major performance gains that can be realized by writing smarter queries and properly indexing the fields used often in WHERE clauses. With well-written code, properly indexed tables, and good queries, the cache can be unnecessary.

That said, the cache is still quite helpful if you do a lot of traffic that tends to hit the same datasets repeatedly. Blogs, news sites, and "informational" websites come to mind.

For environments that are "write heavy" compared to reads, the cache is of limited utility or even counterproductive, and watching the queries, table structure, and code like a hawk are required.

In some cases the only way out is setting up a real db cluster. But that should be a last resort, as just throwing hardware at a pig of an app is a waste of money compared to optimizing the database, queries, and code.

The most frustrating situation is when we're stuck with "legacy" setups running some off-the-shelf app and have little control over the access patterns and structure, and no ability to change the app. In those cases, a cache really can help.

I guess that's where the full-blown version will be useful.

All the possible tradeoffs can make your head explode.

An Eventual Mobile DB server (1)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302903)

Would this be a candidate for a light DB server for a mobile device? Perhaps for address books, media catalogs, etc... Could it find a niche beyond the web? BTW, IOANADBE (I obviously am not a database expert). IAANAAE (I am also not an acronym expert)

Re:An Eventual Mobile DB server (2, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303205)

stuff like sqlite, berkeley db, and sql server compact edition already serve this purpose well. an actual server on a mobile device would be far too expensive.

sqlite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24302909)

So this is basically a client/server version of sqlite with better concurrency, minus a bunch of useful features like views?

SQLite? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24302961)

I always thought SQLite did a perfect job of filling in the space between the need for a full blown database and the weight it adds to the server setup. SQLite, as its name suggests, is very lightweight. Where exactly will Drizzle fit in?

Re:SQLite? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302995)

Seems like Drizzle will fit between SQLite and MySQL - small and lightweight, but still using a DBMS.

Re:SQLite? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303115)

Sounds more like a really gimped SQLite (which despite being flat-file based, actually supports lots of useful SQL features like views and transactions (I'm not sure about stored procs).

Re:SQLite? (1)

Doctor Crumb (737936) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303731)

Have you ever actually tried using SQLite for any level of concurrency? It works great for single-user applications, but has massive locking failures if you try using it for a website that actually gets used. I tried it once, then switched the project to mysql.

Okay, but what's different? (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302965)

Is this just a stripped down MySQL? Or is it a fork that actually bring some interesting new scalability features to the table that are otherwise unimplementable in the current MySQL architecture?

Maybe it's my pre-caffeine morning stupor, but the site seems void of any real details.

Sounds like a good idea... (1)

harshmanrob (955287) | more than 5 years ago | (#24302981)

...perhaps I should considering using a database on my website. MySQL always was too fat.

FUCK SLASHDOT!

Giant leap toward the MySQL dream (4, Funny)

kahei (466208) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303027)

Finally, with even views removed, MySQL can move toward its original dream of having *no* features at all -- *no* separation of interface from implementation, *no* referential integrity, *no* bundling of logic with data to ensure data integrity, *no nothing*!

After a period in the wilderness, during which versions 4 and 5 added hated so-called 'features' and 'functionality', we are now finally returning home.

I look forward to Drizzle version 2 in which pesky 'tables', 'columns' and most of all the fancy and pointless 'select' statement are removed.

Seriously, no *views*?

So, what we actually have here is a thin wrapper around InnoDB. If Sun have turned MySQL primarily into a quick-start wrapper for their own product, that's actually pretty clever.

"Assembler" Database... (2, Insightful)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303591)

Yep - it sounds like the Assembly Language version of a DB, built for massive speed but requiring very careful programming to avoid crashes.

Sometimes that's just what you need. Sometimes it's exactly the worst possible approach.

I say let the problem requirements decide which to use.

Massive Concurrency? (1)

mortonda (5175) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303029)

How is "massive concurrency" and the lack of these features compatible?

What I want is massive concurrency in a full scale, disk based, highly available, highly scalable cluster. Can we get that right, please?

Ob (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303059)

By slimmed down it means they've taken tranasactions and all the referential integrity checks out?

Re:Ob (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303653)

A lot of web apps don't use those anyway, and just tend to store one row in a table. And if the data becomes unreadable, nobody cares since it's not really important data in the first place.

For business critical apps, that should scare the bejezzus out of the owner and coders.

For Crying Out Loud (4, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303069)

Proof that when MySQL originally added those materials, they still didn't know why they were important. Some of these aren't even going to slow you down much. Prepared statements can speed you up in some cases.

In this state, it occupies a spot that SQLite does just fine.

Removing prepared statements (1)

rasherbuyer (225625) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303081)

This is something which can only further promote bad programming practices.

But then I'd never use MySQL anyway.

Removing all the useful things... (5, Insightful)

nvivo (739176) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303103)

a database project aimed at powering websites with massive concurrency as well as trimming superfluous functionality from MySQL ... Akers has already selected particular functionality for removal: modes, views, triggers, prepared statements, stored procedures, query cache, data conversion inserts, access control lists and some data types."

I have been developing for the web during the past years and that's why MySQL has been off my list for serious development for some time in favor of Postgresql. It took about a decade to implement basic features like views and foreign keys that even Access 2.0 had in 93. Even sqlite has views for god sake!

Today, even for the most simple projects I cannot think about not using views, stored procedures, and triggers. Not because there is no way to do the job, but because they are important for organization, security, data integrity, etc.

It is like they have no idea that web sites are getting more complicated, and more and more data is involved everyday. I can't think of someone creating a big website with massive concurrency using this. Sounds more like an alternative to Sqlite for very simple tasks.

Re:Removing all the useful things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24303311)

You cleverly omitted an (I think) important sentence.

Drizzle will have a micro-kernel architecture with code being removed from the Drizzle core and moved through interfaces into modules.

Maybe I misread this, but it sounds the features everyone is up in arms about aren't really being removed, but are being modularized. The core application should run faster and other features will load via modules.

suggestion to make a great idea even better (2, Funny)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303151)

Now if we could just get a hiearchical data model and associated standards based query language at the same time (XML, xquery, xupdate, etc) it truly would be Christmas come early. The potential of a FOSS, production ready NXDB is intoxicating (Exist-db, Monet, etc. are sooo close).

MySQL Vapor (1)

Nycran (1282174) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303217)

I think "Vapor" would have been a better name. This is even lighter than SQLite which incidently does have views, triggers and prepared statements. I really fail to see the point or the market, unless they are aiming at the embedded sector... but the article says "powering websites".. FAIL!

Re:MySQL Vapor (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303499)

Embedded servers are where it's at. I was actually thinking about using an embedded server in my cell phone to blog about the journey through the Amazon I'm going on next month. This might be just the ticket I need.

Now I just need to figure out how to get a reasonable amount of bandwidth in the middle of South America.

Re:MySQL Vapor (1)

Nycran (1282174) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303617)

When you say you want to have an embedded server, do you mean that you're planning on running a public web server from your phone?

PostreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24303235)

Why not just use PostgreSQL and get away from the MySQL mess entirely?

Removing query cache ... (1)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303337)

... in a server meant for high concurrency use ... isn't that just shooting yourself in the foot or what?

mysql 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24303357)

So basically they are going to re-release MySQL 3 under a new name.

Why not use use sqlite then? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303485)

If you're going to pull out all the functionality, why not just use sqlite? I personally use an InnoDB setup so I can use Drupal's "related content" module so I won't be switching, but the next drupal is reputed to use sqlite as a backend and if I weren't using this feature I'd go to that. Simpler, lighter. Always present with PHP5.

Old School! (2, Insightful)

jrwilk01 (88081) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303605)

I used something like this back in the late '90s. It was called "MySQL 3" and made by a Swedish company named "TcX AB."

What is old is new again.

All for it (5, Interesting)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303649)

From my point of view, this is MySQL finally embracing their target market.
These features are great and important, but if you're doing small scale web programming through a framework that uses an ORM, or just very simple SQL, why not slim the program down?
If you want real database features, you probably shouldn't be using MySQL in the first place in my opinion.

People don't understand rational databases. (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303699)

This shows a big problem.
Most people don't understand rational databases. As most colleges CS programs don't even touch SQL except for perhaps as an elective. There is a huge knowledge and a lot of miss use of SQL. They treat JOINs and Views as advanced features while they are actually still very quite basic features. Because of this a lot of people use SQL as a replacement for reading a flat file poorly designed with duplicated data, no indexing etc... etc... etc...
These features that seem to make it seem slow actually improve speed, for a lot of cases. eg. a View that takes 1 second to load could take 2 seconds total for the application to select 5 or 6 different tables then try to use logic to put the information together as the application say php or python are a higher level language then a C/c++ written database server. Also there is the additional coding time as it is much easier to reuse or extend on views then to modify code. So yes using a complex view or stored procedure will slow down the database server however if it doesn't slow down the database server it will often end up slowing down the web server instead. being the Web Server is end user facing its speed espectially for usually fast to load simple pages that are use most often are more important then waiting the little extra time for the database to get back from your complex or large request.

Is this a joke? (1)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 5 years ago | (#24303709)

These people want to remove prepared statements and stored procedures? When they are probably one of the best ways to prevent sql injection??
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...