Beta
×

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!

MySQL in a Nutshell

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

Databases 86

stoolpigeon writes "MySQL is frequently touted as the world's most widely used relational database management system. Many of the best known web applications and web sites use MySQL as their data repository. The popularity of MySQL has continued to grow while at the same time many were concerned by the lack of many features considered essential to a 'real' rdbms. Such naysayers have done little to impede the growth or development of MySQL. The first edition of MySQL in a Nutshell, published in 2005, gave users a handy reference to using MySQL. The second edition, published in 2008, covers many new features that MySQL fans proudly proclaim as an answer to all those critics clamoring for a better-rounded rdbms." Read below for the rest of JR's review.

O'Reilly's Nutshell books normally encompass two types of content; tutorials and command reference. MySQL in a Nutshell is true to that format. In this book though, the line between the two is not as cut and dried as in some of the other Nutshell books. The closest to pure reference is probably the documentation of MySQL functions. But there is always more than just a simple statement of function name and parameters. There are examples and when appropriate, Dyer explains function behavior beyond the inherently obvious. A good example would be when Dyer explains the output of Sleep() in the case of a user interrupting query execution with crtl-c.

The tutorials cover all of the basics but extend well into the meat of successfully administering an rdbms. The book begins with an introduction to MySQL itself, instructions on installation and a brief overview of the basics. These chapters make up the first section of the book and take up 35 pages. This means that the book is not an introduction to sql or using an rdbms. This book is first and foremost a reference for the MySQL user who has already moved past the introductory level. I don't think one needs to be an expert to use the book but there is no extended hand-holding for the novice. This is a plus in my opinion, rather than the publisher shoving in a bunch of extra material in an attempt to make the book useful to every reader regardless of their level of experience.

The second section, "SQL Statements and Functions", understandably comprises the majority of the text. This second edition breaks down the categories further, leading to an additional five chapters when compared to the first edition. This is evident with the first chapter, "Security and User Statements and Functions" a chapter that was not in the first edition. Here again the real strength is that the commands are not just documented but they are explained and illustrated with examples.

For the person already working as a MySQL DBA or aspiring to do so, there is excellent coverage beyond the basics. There is documentation on essential skills like back-up, recovery and replication. Another new chapter breaks out database table and schema commands on their own. The brief, but thorough documentation of these features makes this volume extremely useful to the DBA moving to MySQL from another rdbms. One struggle for me, coming to MySQL from Oracle has been that sometimes things are just done very differently than I expect. I don't need a lot of background, I just need to know the MySQL method and this book makes that quickly available and gets me running until I have time to dig further into the why. I would think that this book is a must on the bookshelf of any DBA responsible for the care of MySQL.

Section three further shores up this use with very thorough documentation of MySQL server and client tools. Chapter 15 covers mysqld and mysql. Chapter 16 covers command line utilities. There are roughly 30 utilities covered and I am sure that this chapter could be a real life saver for many. The book does not cover the gui tools available for managing and working with MySQL. This is a strength in my opinion. The tools are built on top of what is documented here and knowledge of the command line commands should adequately prepare the user to deal with any of the various gui tools available out there. This may be somewhat disconcerting to anyone coming from a MS SQL Server background. It's been my experience that folks who have only worked with MS SQL Server struggle when they don't have gui tools, whatever rdbms they are on. Fortunately for them there are a lot of options available to manage MySQL with a gui, they just aren't covered in this book.

The second group that could benefit the most from this book, beyond database administrators is the developer. The documentation of sql statements and functions is of course very useful. The fourth section covers APIs and connectors. It documents the c, perl and php APIs. These chapters follow the same easy flow of mix between documentation and tutorial. The beginning of the chapter covers the basics of connecting, executing statements against the database and the reference follows with the specifics of commands and accompanying examples.

Section five contains three appendices that cover data types, operators and server/environment variables. All three are concise but valuable and cover the information fully. The index does an excellent job of covering not only specific terms but subjects and makes it easy to find what the reader wants, even if they aren't sure of the specific command they are looking to read about.

The book is based on MySQL 5.0 and makes note of features that will be available in 5.1 and 6.0. This does not include master-master replication, since I mentioned that the book does cover that topic. But the section on replication will still be of use with that new feature I am sure. There were some formatting issues in my copy. I don't know if it was isolated or a part of a larger number of copies, I did not see it mentioned on the errata web page for the book. In the chapter on date and time functions, three of the sql examples have formatting errors. The last three characters of the last line of the example are repeated as a fourth line. I'm not sure how this crept in, and it is pretty easy to see that the characters are a typo as opposed to part of the statement but it did throw me for a moment when I looked at them. Anyone typing the command verbatim will get an opportunity to see what their client does with incorrect sql.

I think that this is an excellent book that will aid anyone who interacts with MySQL on a regular basis. There is no fluff, no cuteness and no attempt to do anything beyond providing quick access to key information. The book hits that sweet spot between providing too much or not enough. It does not try to be everything to everyone as I mentioned. It will not do all the lifting necessary to get someone who does not even know what an rdbms is to where they will need to be in order to make good use of this book. It does not dive deep on internals or more advanced topics. But what it covers in that wide middle, it covers very well.

You can purchase MySQL in a Nutshell from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

86 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Timely (5, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949129)

Just in time to be out of date.

Re:Timely (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949243)

I think it covers pretty much everything for 5.1 which just became generally available and stuff for 6.0 which is still in alpha - so I think that it is going to be a valid resource for a while yet.

Re:Timely (2, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949265)

I've continued to find dead-tree references for various languages, DBMSs, etc. useful through several version changes. Of course any IT book is out of date before it's published, but the value of a good printed reference makes up for it relative to the up-to-the-minute nature of (good) online documentation. Both are important; neither is inherently superior to the other.

Re:Timely (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949415)

The last (IT) dead tree I bought that wasn't out of date was K&R (in 1979). I still buy them, though. Paper is kewl. huhhh huhh huh

Re:Timely (3, Insightful)

malikar (756974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949417)

I do agree, but I also think that it's useful to have a desk reference occasionally. Although I'm not a SQL admin or a frequent developer, I do have to deal with MySQL once in a while. Having a thorough source like this can be useful. Also for the less expert programmer, SQL hasn't changed THAT much.

Re:Timely (2, Interesting)

reginaldo (1412879) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949771)

Any reference book that I have purchased previously has ended up collecting dust on my bookshelf. I guess they are good for reading when I am away from the computer, but the internet is better resource for programming, especially with software that is as well documented as MySQL.

I would have a hard time believing this book is better than the Sun documentation [mysql.com] .

Re:Timely (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950595)

Every book review (other than fiction) brings up this question, which basically boils down to "Why buy a dead-tree book?" and that really is irrelevant to whether or not the book is any good - so I ignore it in the review. I prefer to have books on hand for certain things. Some people don't.
 
As to the value of the book with regards to the on-line documentation- that's a pretty subjective question too. I'd say that in the reference portions they are probably about the same - but in the tutorial type material that the book brings together some helpful material that in my experience can be had on line but needs to be pulled together from a multitude of places. Then one needs to start sorting through what is applicable to the version on hand, what is accurate, etc. This book saves that work. And this still ties in to the personal preference of using a book or not. I use numerous 'dead tree' resources when I'm working - some electronic documents printed out and some books. That style works best for me and I feel confident guessing this is true for more than an insignificant amount of people.

Wait, what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25949161)

We've run out of new books to review, so we're reviewing one everyone who works with MySQL already knows?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949349)

everyone? really? I'd go for 'a lot of the people who work with MySQL' but I'd be skeptical if someone said 'the majority' and I really can't go with 'everyone'.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25958369)

I work with MySQL and assumed such a book existed, but did not know if it was any good. That's why reviews exist.

Feature creep (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949225)

If most of the world's web systems use MySQL in its present form, would it not make sense to halt development of the program and go into bug fix maintenance mode, since the lacking features are obviously not required?

Re:Feature creep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25949499)

It's the most widely used because it's free. It does not have the features that MSSQL and Oracle do.

Re:Feature creep (2, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949799)

You mean drizzle [livejournal.com] ?

MySQL in a nutshell (4, Funny)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949279)

Don't.

Why MySQL? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25949317)

I know this is going to get modded Troll or Flamebait, but why has MySQL grown in popularity while PostgreSQL has remained a distant #2 in the open-source RDBMS "market"? I just don't understand it. Can I get a [relatively] objective analysis of this phenomenon?

Re:Why MySQL? (4, Insightful)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949399)

I think a major reason is that most web developers for some reason still use windows, and PostgreSQL was very late with a stable windows version of their database.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

nicklott (533496) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950715)

Uh, what? Most "web developers" may well use windows as their local client but no one worthy of the tag is developing web apps on their local machine.

MySQL was first to market, it's as simple as that. Postgre for years was impenetrable and is generally pedalled by the type of holier-than-thou uber-geek that puts everyone off (you only need to read the comments on here that accompany any story about MySQL or PHP to find the ones I mean). That is their target market and I'm sure they are happy to have cornered it; if they started to impinge on MySQL's territory they would suddenly be encumbered by all those "lusers" who don't know how to partition their tables by hand. (I notice there is already a thread on the pg mailing list gloating: "Make your pick, half assed code that sometimes works, or postgresql". Good luck guys.)

Re:Why MySQL? (2, Interesting)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954167)

Most "web developers" may well use windows as their local client but no one worthy of the tag is developing web apps on their local machine.

Wow. Really? It's funny that later you talk about "the type of holier-than-thou uber-geek that puts everyone off", but you're pretty much as guilty of it as anyone else.

Because, y'know, I could have sworn that the software I'm watching being written, to be used by many thousands of end users and the general public, was largely written by people using Zend Studio for Eclipse on Windows boxes. Either that, or that "AJAX, three tier, fully OO, MVC, buzzword compliant" stuff isn't, in your mind, a "web app".

Or the previous job I had, where I oversaw a team that developed exclusively on Windows, and whose site we were responsible for saw eleven thousand dynamic page views on the home page alone.

But hey, like you say, 'not worthy of the tag'.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955155)

As someone whose primary job responsibility is maintaining a corporate intranet which serves just shy of 40,000 users daily, and receives 1.3m+ homepage views per month, I tell you I am currently using Windows as a desktop OS.

Linux is simply not up to the task of being a stable, newbie-code-monkey-friendly OS for daily use. Just the thought of teaching my coworkers how to us SVN or Git gives me chills. CVS integrated into DreamWeaver allows them to deal with content updates, and Aptana Studio on my desktop lets me do more serious development for the shiny Ajax-y stuff.

This is not because I don't know Linux. I'm no uber-geek, but I know my way around a terminal, and always have 2 PuTTY sessions going - one to dev, for text manipulation and such, and one to prod for real-time access to server logs, double-checking that a file really is in production how it is supposed to be, etc.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25962707)

Or the previous job I had, where I oversaw a team that developed exclusively on Windows, and whose site we were responsible for saw eleven thousand dynamic page views on the home page alone.

Err, that should be 11,000 dynamic page views per second...

Re:Why MySQL? (5, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949433)

MySQL was supported by more free or near free shared hosts earlier. So it basically has an "earlier to market" advantage... Also, it has actively been targeting people newer to the database field (thus why some "enterprise-level" features were originally given low priority). So imagine someone new to databases, and they have 2 choices... one that is heavily targeting them, and one that doesn't really care...

Then it sticks...when those "newbies" become "senior", they pass the word around. Also, originally, when PHPMyAdmin was all the rage, PostgreSQL was pretty much command line only, or at least the tools it had werent as well known... I remember my first job out of college, it was with PostgreSQL (long ago), and it was fairly scary. MySQL gives a better first impression, and its the first impression that "sells".

Re:Why MySQL? (4, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949527)

1) It's a lot easier to set up.
2) Postresql originally would not run on Windows, so for hosting companies that did both Linux and Win, MySQL was a better choice.
3) It [was] easier to use because it's feature set was smaller, so it made a lot of headway with newer web programmers.
4) It had a decent clustering setup
5) It has commercial support

It's been shown time and time again in the market that just because a product is better (postresql) does not mean it will be the solution people choose.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949657)

1 and 5 are there on Postgres too. It doesn't get much easier to setup than "You dont need to do anything" or "next next next -> finish". The big one though from what you mentionned is #2, that was a huge issue back then.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949869)

#1... that was just my first experience I guess. I could just be an idiot, but when I first used it years ago it took me 2 hours to figure out I needed to su as the postgres user to log in for the first time.

Re:Why MySQL? (1, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950233)

No, you're no idiot. It USED to be hard to setup. I just took your post literally, and you stated it in present tense, so I thought you meant right now (especially since for your other points that only had to do with long ago, you specifically mentionned it).

Sorry for the misunderstanding :)

Re:Why MySQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25954651)

I had an easier time of installing postgres on my Mac from the source than I had installing MySQL which I think I had some sort of package.

YMMV I guess.

I like Postgres because it seems to work better once you set it up.

Better for what? (0)

Wee (17189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950727)

You say "just because a product is better (postresql) does not mean ...". My response would be "Better for what?"

I've had to develop applications for both MySQL (the AdWords DB) and PostgreSQL (backend of a Fortune 100 ecommerce system), and have found that each is good at slightly different tasks and in slightly different situations. There is a lot of overlap, yes, but both products can be very capable in their respective domains. Like everything else, there are positives and negatives about both. Saying one is universally better than the other is misguided, and smacks of the "everything is a nail" approach.

-B

Re:Better for what? (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951347)

Well, I was speaking in terms of general database features that each had about 8 years ago when MySQL was first becoming popular - a time when in my opinion postgresql dominated from a feature standpoint. MySQL's development seems to be much faster though so in my opinion it has caught up, if not surpassed, at this point. I do wonder if the perceived faster development of MySQL is due to it's large user base though - it would be a good example of why "first to market" is so powerful... oh look a nail!

Re:Better for what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951687)

Like everything else, there are positives and negatives about both. Saying one is universally better than the other is misguided, and smacks of the "everything is a nail" approach.

MySQL is very capable for the domain where data integrity is not a requirement.

Actually, PostgreSQL is quite good in that domain too although you never really hear about it. All you need to do is set fsync to off in the postgresql.conf file.

Re:Better for what? (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25958185)

Actually, PostgreSQL is quite good in that domain too although you never really hear about it. All you need to do is set fsync to off in the postgresql.conf file.

That's not true... From my benchmarks, postgreSQL doesn't even come CLOSE to mysql in speed if you're using myisam tables with or without fsync. If mysql is using innodb, then they are comparable.

Re:Better for what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25967999)

My response would be "Better for what?"

Better at having transactions, better at not randomly munging data, better at not sucking poop; in short - better.

Re:Why MySQL? (3, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949551)

I think that early on PostgreSQL got a reputation as more difficult to install and administer. It also was considered slower in comparison to MySQL. If I remember correctly MySQL also had a native windows version well before PostgreSQL.
 
I think that when one looks at the projects that picked up and ran with MySQL - for them it was enough. Whatever it lacks - they didn't really need. So it started to gain momentum and hasn't really slowed down. And once a project gets past that point, it starts to be used for that reason alone. Look around and see how easy it is to find a host that supports MySQL compared to PostgreSQL. A couple years ago it was even worse.
 
Those are some of the factors I'm aware of that I think lead to the current situation. Those are pretty obvious but I think also pretty significant. A last one may be the difference in licensing. That's more complicated and less obvious but I think the commercial side of MySQL may have played into the whole thing as well.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950755)

If I remember correctly MySQL also had a native windows version well before PostgreSQL.

You seem to say that like it's a good thing.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950891)

Just dealing with the reality of the situation my friend. I agree with your sentiment completely.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

Blkdeath (530393) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952495)

If I remember correctly MySQL also had a native windows version well before PostgreSQL.

You seem to say that like it's a good thing.

Yeah, it's never a good thing to support the global industry leading platform.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953315)

If I remember correctly MySQL also had a native windows version well before PostgreSQL.

You seem to say that like it's a good thing.

It isn't? Unlike the true geek of slashdot, my first computer was a Windows pc, since it's a family computer. Having Mysql on Windows saves me a lot of trouble.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25967873)

my first computer was a Windows pc

Well that's yor problem, right there. Noob.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949673)

I've asked people the same question, and the overwhelming response was lack of GUI tools to work easily with it. I'm personally indifferent which one I've got to work with.

Re:Why MySQL? (5, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949681)

I know this is going to get modded Troll or Flamebait, but why has MySQL grown in popularity while PostgreSQL has remained a distant #2 in the open-source RDBMS "market"? I just don't understand it. Can I get a [relatively] objective analysis of this phenomenon?

Because folks have a hard time pronouncing "PostgreSQL".

Is it, post-grease-squeel?

or p.ah.st-gree-squeel?

Or post-grease-S-Q-L?

I won't use it because I'm afraid of looking stewpid when pronownsing it.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950693)

I always thought it would either be post-gres S-Q-L or post-grey S-Q-L

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955103)

i'm glad that i'm not the only who actually pronounces it as "S-Q-L" instead of "sequel."

i don't know why, but i've always thought it was weird to call MySQL "my sequel" or to say "sequel code," though i guess that's how most people in the industry pronounce it. and i've always just pronounced PostgreSQL post-greh S-Q-L, but apparently the developers called it post-gres Q-L according to Wikipedia and this mp3 clip [postgresql.org] on the official PostgreSQL site.

now if i can just figure out how to pronounce "Bjarne Stroustrup..." [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why MySQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951193)

posTIGERsuckle. Sounds kinda scary.

Re:Why MySQL? (2, Funny)

BKX (5066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952901)

I vote for post-gray-skull

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955325)

MySQL: <my><S><Q><L>
PostgreSQL: <post><gress><Q><L>

These are correct because they are how I pronounce them, and I am always right. Always.

post-grease-squeel? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956233)

Is it, post-grease-squeel?

Does it feature either a young Olivia Newton John or Michelle Pfieffer in a tight outfit?

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949783)

I vote for postgres simply being a stupid name. MySQL sounds simpler, and in the early days it was much less work to install. Postgres was just too much of a pain to type and it sounds like something you would call your red headed step child. Summed up, MySQL succeeded where Postgres failed miserably. Marketing.

Re:Why MySQL? (3, Insightful)

paimin (656338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950205)

I think PostgreSQL has suffered because people don't know how the hell to pronounce the damn name [postgresql.org] . You can't recommend or adopt a piece of software if you are too embarrassed to say its name.

Of course, the other side of that coin is Drizzle. Easy to pronounce, but WTF?

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25958855)

Pissed Grey Squirrel?

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950291)

You may wish to consider reading the article [slashdot.org] right below this one and consider it's implications with open source software projects.

Re:Why MySQL? (2, Insightful)

Unordained (262962) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950593)

As for Firebird, it fared better in terms of ease of setup than PostgreSQL (early on, the gap was huge!), and in terms of platform support (Windows support is not new, for example.) But its security model made it difficult to run on a shared host; you couldn't easily grant a user the right to create his own private database, which required admin privs, without granting him access to other private databases; also, the usernames were visible and unique across the whole set of databases, and you didn't really want your customers seeing each others' usernames, even if you couldn't use that to hack into anything. There are ways around that, but for shared server situations, it's a hurdle.

Both were lightyears ahead of MySQL in terms of features and stability and developer friendliness (I won't go into speed benchmarks, as that's not my primary concern in a database engine), but as others point out, that's not always what determines a market. I remember quite a few Linux install CD's that came with MySQL prepackaged -- nobody else, just MySQL. So of course people would try that out, and then just stay with it out of sheer laziness or ignorance, or a little later, out of concern for application integration, now that several of your favorite apps all support MySQL (for their own, similar, reasons) and nothing else. And then you've got a form of lock-in, only it's with open-source. It's not so much about what you can do, as what's convenient to do.

Re:Why MySQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950725)

Can I get a [relatively] objective analysis of this phenomenon?

Because fuckwads like hemos keep allowing twatbollock poney-cunts like roland to push it here all the time with their fake ''reviews'' and ''storys''.

Morale: never underestimte the power of ster-yupid sheeple in huge numbers.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950961)

For me and I looked at both (this was a few years back)

MySQL was easy to setup - or more specifically easy to understand what you are doing when setting it up, PostgreSQL I was able to set up but was never sure if I did it right and could not find answers.

There were a lot more books for MySQL and most all of them were way better than what I could find for PostgreSQL.

On Line community support was friendlier for MySQL.

Those three things gave me immediate success and gratification while learning MySQL, and for most of the things we do, that is what really makes the difference. Postgres (at least back then) didn't provide users with such an experience.

Re:Why MySQL? (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952883)

You install some package, and it says "requires MySQL" and then you have MySQL installed. Later you need to do something database-y, and think "well, I already have MySQL on here..."

Having just had to plow through MySQL 5.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25949327)

... Certification Study Guide, in a nutshell, it stinks.

Why don't people just use PostgreSQL instead????

MySQL Irrelevence (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949425)

The second edition, published in 2008, covers many new features that MySQL fans proudly proclaim as an answer to all those critics clamoring for a better-rounded rdbms.

It's not just about the fact that MySQL has those features now. It's that developers and users of it never properly understood why those features are important, and only went along with it when it was shown that you could get them while still getting high scores on artificial benchmarks.

Now that they've at least fixed the fundamental problems, they've traded it for a bunch of new problems, like buggy releases and a questionable future with Sun.

Re:MySQL Irrelevence (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949751)

It's that developers and users of it never properly understood why those features are important

Obviously they where not important features to *most* MySQL users. Folks, right tool for the job and all. MySQL clearly is the right tool for many jobs. Not all, but clearly many.

Re:MySQL Irrelevence (2, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950791)

Question: Is it really the right tool for that many job, or is it just a fallback option? What I mean is, do MySQL users actually do a benefit analysis of MySQL and its alternatives and find MySQL to be the best tool for the job, or are they using it because "its there", "its what everyone uses", "I heard about it while at school", etc?

To avoid being accused of being a troll, let me give a personal example: I'm personally a SQL Server guy (sweet, now instead of being called a troll, I'll be called worse, hahaha). I really like SQL Server and its tools. So when given the choice, I naturally go to SQL Server. Its what I know, it is cheap (among commercial offerings anyway), and its often "there" (as many of my clients use it already).

However, I'm sure in many cases, if I did a cost/benefit analysis, even if I include setup time and training, alternatives such as Oracle or PostgreSQL (or even MySQL in some cases) would come out at the top. Actually, for more important projects, its what I do and its what happens. As much as I love SQL Server, it isn't the end all be all.

So to come back to MySQL: I don't think I'd be too far from the truth if I'd say that "most" of its users haven't carefully looked at alternatives, and are spending a lot of man hours tweaking it and working around its limitation, just because its what they know, and are not fully aware of the extent to which its missing features are hurting them.

Re:MySQL Irrelevence (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952265)

I'd say that most of it's users don't *need* to spend time tweaking and working around limitations, far and away the most common use of it would be (my guess) small websites, for which it is ridiculously simple to maintain. In these cases not having to spend time on a cost benefit analysis could probably be considered a feature of mysql.

Re:MySQL Irrelevence (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952559)

In these cases not having to spend time on a cost benefit analysis could probably be considered a feature of mysql.

In this day and age, the only RDBMS that aren't "rediculously simple to maintain" are stuff like Oracle (and with the smaller free editions, thats debatable. And all of them could work fine for a "small website" (though some will have more functions than others, making it easier or harder to code the SQL to do even basic things.)

So in the end, it comes down to what I said: people use it because its "there" and its what they heard about. Not because its necessarly the right tool for the job. It works. Doesn't mean it works best.

Re:MySQL Irrelevence (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956179)

I think you missed my point, for sufficiently small projects, the fact that it is there *makes* it the right tool for the job, the difference between "works" and "works best" is not worth the time to achieve.

Re:MySQL Irrelevence (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953215)

The early versions of MySQL were basically SQL wrappers over BerkelyDB. But if you're going to do that, why not make it even lighterweight, like the route that SQLite later took? SQLite was ahead of MySQL in implementing transactions and still had comparable performance.

MySQL was never the right tool for any job.

Re:MySQL Irrelevence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953197)

lol .. and of course *you* understand why all of these features are important and go to great lengths and expense to use all of them simply because you're so proud of yourself for 'understanding' them. Meanwhile, the rest of the guys are out there running the databases that run a good portion of the web without ever worrying if they've used every possible feature of an rdbms. Kinda makes you feel less important huh?

Re:MySQL Irrelevence (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#25962441)

A textbook example of why "Anonymous" is follwed by "Coward".

My summary (0, Flamebait)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949461)

It's full of bugs [slashdot.org] .

More MySQL (3, Funny)

sakonofie (979872) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949477)

For those that didn't get the memo it is now officially "MySQL Day" here at slashdot.
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/01/1627257 [slashdot.org]
http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/01/1457236 [slashdot.org]
From http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/01/1555207 [slashdot.org]

They even have a slideshow of "OSS alternatives" like Linux, Apache, MySQL, Firefox,Xen, Pentaho, OpenOffice.org, Drupal, Alfresco, SugarCRM, and Asterisk.

This Bookvertisment... (0, Offtopic)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949677)

... brought to you by Amazon and Sun. Book reviews belong in grade school not news sites.

News for Nerds .. do you even remember that anymore?

Give us news for nerds. When was the last time CNN, NBC, CBS, BBC, or any other site for news had a book review? The last time I did a book review was in Jr. High for The Sword of Shannara. This is nonsense. Amazon has a nice review system, why clutter up a site meant for news with reviews? Go to the book online and see the comments left there. This is paid advertisement plain and simple masqurading as a piece of news.

Garbage...

Re:This Bookvertisment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25949955)

Nerds read books. That's the difference.

Re:This Bookvertisment... (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950363)

Paid advertisement requires that some form of payment was exchanged. I do not work for Sun, slashdot, O'Reilly or Amazon. I did not receive any kind of compensation for writing the review beyond the satisfaction of doing so. So that accusation fails - there was no payment involved here.
 
I can't answer for the folks who run slashdot - but I can answer for myself. I love books. I love to read them. I enjoy writing reviews too - it's a fun hobby. I started doing so because I would read book reviews here and thought it would be fun to try it myself. I appreciate the book reviews posted here by others because it is information in which I am interested. I tend to buy books, probably at a rate that is higher than the average consumer where I live. This makes the reviews a valuable resource in my estimation.
 
And since you seem to be struggling in this regard, CNN [cnn.com] , NBC [msn.com] (though there's are more mixed into other areas rather completely on their own - here's another for you [msn.com] ), CBS [cbsnews.com] (yes - via AP but I think they do news.) and BBC [bbc.co.uk] .
 
And finally - you can filter book reviews off your front page. So I'm thinking your a troll or maybe having a bad day. But relax - chill out and don't get upset about this. "Garbage" is certainly going overboard. I'd suggest a fun read to help you chill out. "Zoe's Tale" by John Scalzi is a good one. I'm hoping to type up my review this week if you want to know more about it.

Re:This Bookvertisment... (2, Interesting)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950367)

Well judging from your posting history, you seem to be an idiot with a vendetta against books.

I remember News for Nerds. I also remember book reviews on /. before your user account # was created.

However, if, as you claim, the reviewer was actually paid for his article, then you're absolutely right! How did you find this bit of information out, though? I'm curious to see the trail.

Re:This Bookvertisment... (1)

NickFitz (5849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951853)

I remember News for Nerds. I also remember book reviews on /. before your user account # was created.

So do I :-)

Re:This Bookvertisment... (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951907)

Bah! Showoff! :-)

Re:This Bookvertisment... (1)

NickFitz (5849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955045)

Sorry ;-)

(BTW, 5849 is prime...)

Re:This Bookvertisment... (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25962433)

Well 112599 isn't prime, but it's at least happy! Can't say that about 5849.

Re:This Bookvertisment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952743)

News just in.. Fuck you.

Re:This Bookvertisment... (1)

Phasma Felis (582975) | more than 5 years ago | (#25962531)

Yeah, I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but pretty much every non-television news source from the New York Times to the Onion does book reviews, including the BBC. [bbc.co.uk] So, y'know, welcome to the world.

No, SQLite is the most used... (2, Informative)

ventonegro (181739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950031)

At least according to them: http://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html [sqlite.org]

Re:No, SQLite is the most used... (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950333)

I am using that! Just started with databases last week and MAN is SQLite easy to use!
-Taylor

SQLite (4, Interesting)

Mr. McGibby (41471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950609)

MySQL is frequently touted as the world's most widely used relational database management system.

That would actually be SQLite. It's in cellphones, set top boxes, and all sorts of other embedded devices.

Re:SQLite (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952117)

Including the iPhone and the Firefox browser you're probably using to view this page.

a ready-to-use MySQL system ideal for beginners (1)

lirazsiri (1046354) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951621)

For anyone who would like a ready-to-use MySQL server to experiment with while reading the book, I'd like to recommend TurnKey MySQL [turnkeylinux.org] . (disclaimer: I'm one of the developers)

It's an easy-to-use, lightweight, installable live CD of the MySQL database that can run on real hardware in addition to most types of virtual machines. It features a Mac OS X-themed Web management interface and a Python configuration and installation console. It is based on Ubuntu 8.04.1 Hardy LTS, and is designed to provide users with a pre-integrated, automatically updated, turn-key operating system environment that is carefully built from the ground up with the minimum components needed to run the MySQL database with maximum usability, efficiency, and security.

It's part of the TurnKey Linux [turnkeylinux.org] opensource project.

Did anyone else notice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953169)

That's an expensive nutshell.

I am all for opensource and stuff (1)

floydman (179924) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954963)

I am not even sure if it still is..
but when I read "MySQL is frequently touted as the world's most widely used relational database management system"..i giggled.

If master L.Ellison reads it, he will giggle too .

MySQL switched LGPL - GPL in 2006 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25959263)

You can't link it with non-open-source code.
This is why there was a switch to Postgres.

MySQL join performance deficiency, 3 orders of mag (2, Interesting)

nluv4hs (1422261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25962629)

I know the subject sounds inflammatory but I have hard numbers and a simple, yet realistic example. I would like it if someone would show me how to coax MySQL to perform as well as PostgreSQL for this simple query. It's been over two months since I posted this problem in two very [mysql.com] public forums [mysqlperformanceblog.com] , with no response from the MySQL community. Would someone please stand up for MySQL and save it from looking weak here?!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>