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!

MariaDB 10 Released, Now With NoSQL Support

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the brand-new dept.

Databases 103

noahfecks (2379422) writes "Version 10 of the most famous fork of MySQL MariaDB has been released. Its developers said that is many times faster than MySQL, also claiming that its replications slaves are crash free. More details of this release can be found on the blog."

cancel ×

103 comments

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

fine grammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621613)

many times more awesomer! ! !

really.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622109)

There is a point where a drunk child can write better and this headline reached it. Always read it before you send it you retarded idiot. And if 'you aint so good' with English, please stop. No one needs to read half-assed written headlines.

PS: never come back.

Re:really.. (1, Insightful)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 7 months ago | (#46622349)

Probably written in India.

Re:really.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46623221)

Mariadb, and other mysql spinoffs, have one key advantage over mysql....not owned by Oracle.

Aka...

MariaDB is not trying to keep mysql a technology backwater to protect proprietary Oracle db offerings. Its also not in bed with the NSA. Anyone that uses any Oracle products (including oracle implementation of Java), the same company that got its start selling software to the CIA, is dumb as a rock if they think they are getting security.

Re:fine grammer (0)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46622373)

Still better then 'more performant'. At least they don't make up words where there are already perfectly good ones.

Re:fine grammer (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 7 months ago | (#46622809)

If you were a real grammar nazi, then would have known that the correct form is 'better than'.

Re:fine grammer (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 months ago | (#46623067)

irregardless of these minor issues, we will continue to post!

Re:fine grammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46627151)

regardless....

Re:fine grammer (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 months ago | (#46627613)

whoosh!

Re:fine grammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46628317)

woosh!

Editors (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 months ago | (#46621623)

"that is many time more faster than MySQ"

That's the most awesome thing I've read all day. LOL. Or should I say, ROR.

Re:Editors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621647)

ROTATE RIGHT does not apply to this story. I think you are trying to be clever - you're not.

Re:Editors (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 months ago | (#46621701)

Fa-ra-ra-ra-ra, ra-ra-ra-ra.

Re:Editors (0)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 7 months ago | (#46621787)

CLC
LSR $FF
WTF $HAXXOR
CMP $OUTDOORS
I sort of forget what we're talking about. Oh yeah, Mysq, the latest sequel to Myst, now for your Commodore VIC-20...

Re:Editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621799)

He could have been many more times funnier.

Re:Editors (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621751)

Just imagine what it looked like before being edited.

Re:Editors (0)

mooingyak (720677) | about 7 months ago | (#46622005)

Cut them some slack. The summary is not merely one, but TWO sentences. That takes real work.

Re:Editors (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46622321)

Likely perfect English.

Re:Editors (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46621819)

America! Fuck Yeah!

Re:Editors (2, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46621939)

That's because Slashdot's MySQL replication slave crashed while replicating the sentence.

Re:Editors (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 7 months ago | (#46623479)

POPL POPR dang buffers full

It's webscale! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621667)

As a manager this excites me!

Re:It's webscale! (0)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 7 months ago | (#46621757)

And it comes with lots of petabytes in the cloud! The kind they use in Big Data, not like those cheap terabytes they use in the SQL.

Re:It's webscale! (1, Offtopic)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46621981)

And it comes with lots of petabytes in my butt!

You seem to be unusually happy for a person in such condition.

"many time more faster" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621669)

As if we needed any further proof that Slashdot has no editors.

Re:"many time more faster" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622113)

Slashdot has plenty of editors. It's just that none of them were able to pass high-school English.

Re:"many time more faster" (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46622213)

You no like many time more faster? It's more better plus double good!

Re:"many time more faster" (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 7 months ago | (#46622851)

Me fail English? That is unpossible!

First all our bases, now this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621767)

First all our bases, now this.

Found MariaDB to be pretty lacking (3, Informative)

AndrewFenn (1449703) | about 7 months ago | (#46621827)

I've tried out MariaDB specifically, the Galera Cluster many times and found it to be very lacking. The default Debian repos just seem broken and have been for a long time according to the bug reports i've read. Apart from the broken packages the fact that the documentation is very lacking and dotted all over the place has put me off. After MariaDB I moved on to Percona's implementation which comes with working packages and good documentation.

warning citizens (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621833)

Best MariaDB ever hits the streets – MariaDB 10 innovations developed with Google, SkySQL & Fusion-IO

GOOGLE?
they cooped mozilla now maria....too bad gonna have to go make my own like i did in high school...fook this bunch a nsa panzies and us tech

Re:warning citizens (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 7 months ago | (#46626957)

Nullius in verba [wikipedia.org] , if in doubt, you can always check the source in this case. And if you can't check the source, then you can't trust.

Many times more cleaner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621835)

Why are they naming it after my house cleaner?

Now with NoSQL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621961)

And even less drop-in replaceability!

BTW, MariaDB has crash-safe slaves only because this feature is implemented in MySQL 5.6.

Use Percona or MySQL.

So why should I use this when mysql is still free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622025)

What are the advantages to using this increasingly slow and bloated fork of the internet's favorite database platform?

Re:So why should I use this when mysql is still fr (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622165)

One answer to your loaded question: Avoiding Oracle's unceasing commitment to thwarting advances in technology that are community-driven or otherwise unable to be monetized?

Re:So why should I use this when mysql is still fr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622217)

So what are these "advantages" that your database possesses that youre so axious about becomeing monetized -or is it simply a contrarian fork made for it's own sake?

Re:So why should I use this when mysql is still fr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46623533)

go back to ars, you MS using @$%^&^

use your WORDS boy! WORDS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46626213)

EOM

Re:So why should I use this when mysql is still fr (1)

substance2003 (665358) | about 7 months ago | (#46622209)

What are the advantages to using this increasingly slow and bloated fork of the internet's favorite database platform?

Mind giving examples showing this to be true? This is the 1st I'm hearing about this although I don't follow it all the time. I'm just curious about how MariaDB could be so slow considering that the founders of MySQL are working on that version now.

Re:So why should I use this when mysql is still fr (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46622291)

Because Oracle owns MySQL.

Re:So why should I use this when mysql is still fr (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622379)

So it's a contrarian fork. Gotcha. Thanks for saving me wasted time and effort.

NoSQL is just a vague term (2)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 7 months ago | (#46622167)

What does NoSQL mean for MariaDB? Without context it is just another buzz word.

The only thing I know about MariaDB is that it is a fork of MySQL created because Oracle is Evil.

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622301)

NoSQL means the same thing it always means, "ACID is hard, so we don't do it."

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (3, Funny)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 7 months ago | (#46623019)

NoSQL means the same thing it always means, "ACID is hard, so we don't do it."

By that definition, MySQL is the original NoSQL database.

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (2)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#46623125)

NoSQL means the same thing it always means, "ACID is hard, so we don't do it."

ACID is expensive to scale. NoSQL offers little when you have 1 or 10 DB servers. But if most of what you store doesn't need to be ACID, and you need 10,000 DB servers, NoSQL has a real cost advantage.

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (1)

Amadodd (620353) | about 7 months ago | (#46624309)

Case well made for NoSQL - it's a great fit for 0.001% of use cases.

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (2)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#46624855)

As with everything cloudy, it's few software products but many, many end users.

Well, that and the vast majority of simple programs that don't need ACID to begin with. If you just need a non-ACID structured data store, why bother with SQL? Currently NoSQL is mostly for analytics, but I think that's just habit.

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46625303)

If you just need a non-ACID structured data store, why bother with SQL? Currently NoSQL is mostly for analytics, but I think that's just habit.

It gives you room to grow. If you're sure you won't need room to grow, that's fine, but it's still the typical answer to your question.

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622353)

The documentation server is going though the /. effect right now. But I was able to get a cached version off Google. Here is what I found:

HANDLER
The HANDLER statements gives you direct access to reading rows from the sto...

HandlerSocket
HandlerSocket gives you direct access to InnoDB/XtraDB and SPIDER.. It is i...
Dynamic Column API

Client-side API for reading and writing Dynamic Columns blobs

Dynamic columns
MariaDB starting with 5.3 Dynamic columns first appeared in MariaDB-5.3 Dyn...

Dynamic Columns API
This page describes client-side of MariaDB 10.0.1 API for reading and writi...

Dynamic Columns in MariaDB 10
MariaDB starting with 10.0.1MariaDB 10.0.1 got the following improvements ...

LOAD_FILE
Returns file contents as a string

Source: https://mariadb.com/kb/v/nosql/

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 7 months ago | (#46622799)

The documentation server is going though the /. effect right now.

Considering how weak the /. effect is these days it doesn't say much for the performance of their database.

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622583)

In this case it means MariaDB supports dynamic columns and can connect directly to Cassandra data sources.

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (4, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 7 months ago | (#46622759)

no idea, but I know Postgresql has had JSON columns [postgresql.org] for a while now, so you get the benefit of 'typeless' data storage (ie a blob of JSON data) and all the benefit of relational data if you want it (as its just another column).

MariaDB did it differently [mariadb.org] , merging Cassandra as a storage back-end, and "dynamic columns' so you can have different columns of data per row in a table. (and you can get all the dynamic column data out as a JSON blob).

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (1)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 7 months ago | (#46623919)

Hey that is interesting, I have a system here where I store small amounts of JSON data as text column, since I don't have to query that text column it is not a problem for me (although I have to deal with missing values by hand), but how would you go about querying data from those types of "document-store" columns?

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (2)

djd20 (1835080) | about 7 months ago | (#46628675)

You may also be interested in the new jsonb postgres feature upcoming in 9.4 http://www.craigkerstiens.com/... [craigkerstiens.com]

Re:NoSQL is just a vague term (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 7 months ago | (#46628781)

you really didn't bother clicking through the link I put on and looking at the examples before asking that question.

More faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622215)

More faster? Less grammar?

I never trusted Monty in the first place (1, Offtopic)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46622223)

Does MariaDB still do shit like this?

http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotch... [sql-info.de]

MySQL has always been a way to serve unimportant data at high speed. Great if you're serving up fuzzy matches to people who are doing a Google search and have no preconceptions about what they will get back in response to a search, or organizing a web forum visited by millions where if you lose someones comment, you really don't care. If you're dealing with data where accuracy, reliability and predictability is important, though, it was a ticking time bomb waiting to blow up in your face.

Has that changed at all? After all the years he spent trying to promote his DB into spaces it didn't belong, telling people that things like data integrity didn't matter and should be handled at the application layer, I have zero trust for the man, but perhaps things have improved?

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

hholzgra (6914) | about 7 months ago | (#46622515)

Depends on the SQL_MODE settings ... if using backwards compatible settings you'll at least get a truncation warning now, if using more strict modes it will throw errors instead ...

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

neoform (551705) | about 7 months ago | (#46622859)

I guess we better not use C/C++ in that case. Getting integer overflows means it's not a serious language, we should call them "fuzzy integers" instead.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46622971)

I guess we better not use C/C++ in that case. Getting integer overflows means it's not a serious language, we should call them "fuzzy integers" instead.

If you find a C++ compiler that will let you declare a variable of type 'foo' and store an object of type 'bar' in it without throwing any errors, despite 'bar' not inheriting from 'foo', then yes, I would say it's not a compiler you want to use to do serious work with.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

neoform (551705) | about 7 months ago | (#46623103)

The first item from your link:

He tries to insert 99999999999999 into a 32 bit int field, what he gets is 2147483647 stored as the value.

What do you suppose would happen in C/C++ if you have a 32 bit int, and you add 99999999999999 to it? Are you going to curse C/C++ for allowing the int to overflow?

Other databases (tested: Firebird 1.5rc4, Oracle 8.1.7 and PostgreSQL 7.4) raised errors with the same data.

Allow me to introduce you to strict mode: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refma... [mysql.com]

Which has been available for almost a decade.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46623227)

It throws an overflow exception, not silently change the value to what it thinks you might have wanted.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (3, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46623325)

The first item from your link:

He tries to insert 99999999999999 into a 32 bit int field, what he gets is 2147483647 stored as the value.

What do you suppose would happen in C/C++ if you have a 32 bit int, and you add 99999999999999 to it? Are you going to curse C/C++ for allowing the int to overflow?

Other databases (tested: Firebird 1.5rc4, Oracle 8.1.7 and PostgreSQL 7.4) raised errors with the same data.

Allow me to introduce you to strict mode: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refma... [mysql.com]

Which has been available for almost a decade.

You're like a dog with a bone. Last time I worked with MySQL was 5.0.1, and it was letting people insert ASCII strings into integer fields, and every time people expressed concerns, all you saw was rhetoric about how that should have been dealt with at the application layer. Which is fine if you're setting up a web forum, but not when you're organizing an enterprise that spans the world and has numerous applications accessing it, where one junior programmers mistake can hose your whole fucking enterprise. No client has mandated that I MUST use it since, therefore, I haven't used it since, and asked a serious question.

The history of MySQL was very well summed up in an earlier post: "ACID is hard, therefore we don't do it."

Not just me... most professionals know this and accept it and know that not every tool fits every scenario. Don't know what YOUR fucking problem is.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

neoform (551705) | about 7 months ago | (#46624149)

>Which is fine if you're setting up a web forum,

Or.. you know, a top 5 website [wikipedia.com] ... small potatoes.

>but not when you're organizing an enterprise that spans the world and has numerous applications accessing it

Silly me, I didn't realize every tech industry could be summed up so tightly. Everyone that uses mysql must simply be retarded, and everyone that uses PGSQL a genius.

>Not just me... most professionals know this and accept it and know that not every tool fits every scenario.

And yet somehow you insinuate that the only possible use for mysql is a "web forum".

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46624229)

>Which is fine if you're setting up a web forum,

Or.. you know, a top 5 website [wikipedia.com] ... small potatoes.

Yes, exactly. A glorified web forum serving unreliable data at high speed. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something?

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

neoform (551705) | about 7 months ago | (#46624375)

Your definition of "web forum" is looser than mysql when it's not in strict mode.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46624529)

Try implementing hundreds of pages of ISO specifications for medical applications, then come back and talk to me about the "complexity" of Wikipedia. It has users, posts, edits, search and not a whole hell of a lot more than that. It's a web forum, not overly different from Slashdot. If they lose a post, no one really cares that much.

I suppose you think Slashdot is complex too, do you?

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

neoform (551705) | about 7 months ago | (#46624751)

Lol. I love how you're using a medical application as the standard/bar for all database use everywhere.

You would do very poorly working on large scale web services.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46624857)

Lol. I love how you're using a medical application as the standard/bar for all database use everywhere.

You would do very poorly working on large scale web services.

They seemed to like my work when I was helping rebuild all of Viacom's websites from scratch.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46625535)

I'm with neoform on this whole convo. You sound like an idiot from the first sentence. You used MySQL a long time ago and now you know every reason not to use it forever, right? Idiot.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46625643)

I'm with neoform on this whole convo. You sound like an idiot from the first sentence. You used MySQL a long time ago and now you know every reason not to use it forever, right? Idiot.

Awh, man... and my self-esteem was all tied up in what you guys thought of me, too. Whoever the fuck you are.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46628339)

Whoa! Look at this idiot so obsessed with responding to everyone who calls him an idiot as if he's protecting his idiot ego.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46629249)

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46627329)

ah strict mode, so when mysql loses or corrupts your data it loses and corrupts accurate data.

here's a quarter kid, get yourself a real dbms

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 7 months ago | (#46624479)

C/C++ don't claim to follow relational data rules like MySQL does. Not only is SQL supposed to error if it can't do *exactly* as the user describes, it's supposed to change nothing if any of the affected rows error. It's not supposed to be allowed to guess if the user tells it to do something ambiguous or nonsensical. It's supposed to be required to throw an error in that case. Indeed, many RDBMSs error on some tasks simply because the result would be non-deterministic.

An RDBMS is not just a fancy key-value store. It's not a series of JSON or XML strings. It's a data entity rule set. Used correctly, it will not allow you to store obviously invalid data, even if the underlying datatypes allow the data as valid types.

Determinism is the real issue here. Imagine a compiler that produced different programs from the same source code. That's not particularly useful, is it? Well, a lot of the behavior that MySQL has let slide indicates that they don't particularly care about being deterministic. It's sloppy, and the one thing DBAs hate is sloppy, unpredictable results.

MySQL is the IE 6 of the database world. It encourages poor developer practice. It allows and even encourages lazy or downright risky developer behavior, when the RDBMS should be the element requiring the developer to think about how he stores his data and consider the ramifications of getting useful data from his system that go beyond his own needs. It has more oddball syntax than any other RDBMS, and is less likely to complain about data integrity and more likely to perform silent truncation or silent modification than even SQLite.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

neoform (551705) | about 7 months ago | (#46625053)

>MySQL is the IE 6 of the database world. It encourages poor developer practice

This would be true if IE6 was easier to use than every other browser out there.

MySQL is simple, fast and does a sufficient job for those who use it.

>It's not supposed to be allowed to guess if the user tells it to do something ambiguous or nonsensical.

Considering most people who use MySQL also use PHP, this actually makes perfect sense. PHP is loosely typed, and in a way, so is MySQL. It's forgiving and makes corrections based on context.

I'm curious if you actually feel MySQL has no place in any application...

Does ease of use count for nothing to you? It's significantly faster to get a web app up and running with mysql than it is with postgres.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46625213)

Does ease of use count for nothing to you?

MySQL is only easy to use if you think that means "easy to make it do something". With the far more sensible definition of "easy to make it do what you need", it loses hands down.

It's significantly faster to get a web app up and running with mysql than it is with postgres.

[citation needed]

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46626495)

Go the fuck back to Reddit.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 7 months ago | (#46625633)

MySQL is simple, fast and does a sufficient job for those who use it.

I think his point is to say that MySQL is a full fledge SQL database is like saying IE 6 is a standards compliant web browser. Both do the job adequately for most people, but both aren't without serious faults.

MySQL owes its success to web frameworks where better SQL servers like Postgres are considered an overkill and it works quite well in that domain. If your requirements are more on the SQL-side than the web-side of the equation, you would do much better with Postgres.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (2)

neoform (551705) | about 7 months ago | (#46626593)

>I think his point is to say that MySQL is a full fledge SQL database is like saying IE 6 is a standards compliant web browser.

Herein lies the problem: what standards are you referring to? ACID? Mysql 5.5 in strict mode *is* ACID compliant.

>MySQL owes its success to web frameworks where better SQL servers like Postgres are considered an overkill and it works quite well in that domain.

I think you're remembering history differently than it was. MySQL was always significantly faster than Postgres, which was a slow database until relatively recently. There's a reason companies like Google chose MySQL for their adsense platform.

>If your requirements are more on the SQL-side than the web-side of the equation, you would do much better with Postgres.

Oh, absolutely. But... this comes down to a "right tool for the job" situation. The other guy that was replying to me just hates mysql and sees no use for it.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622999)

Does MariaDB still do shit like this?

http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotch... [sql-info.de]

That gotcha list is from a decade ago. It explicitly states they weren't tested against MySQL 5.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

dtfinch (661405) | about 7 months ago | (#46624973)

MySQL's had a strict mode since 2004 to reject invalid data. They didn't make it default until late 2012 though in 5.6.8, and I couldn't find what the MariaDB default is (short of downloading the source and looking). Even then, they only it in the default config file, so manual or distro-specific configs that omit the setting will fall back to the old truncation mode.

Re:I never trusted Monty in the first place (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 months ago | (#46625359)

MySQL's had a strict mode since 2004 to reject invalid data. They didn't make it default until late 2012 though in 5.6.8, and I couldn't find what the MariaDB default is (short of downloading the source and looking). Even then, they only it in the default config file, so manual or distro-specific configs that omit the setting will fall back to the old truncation mode.

Yeah, but it didn't always work. I know what the docs say. The last time I looked at them, they were wrong. I don't trust them not to still be wrong, because I've been in the trenches long enough know the man behind the project is a liar and an attention whore. I was hoping to hear from someone who could say "Yeah, I tested it recently, and the constraints work fine now/are still silently ignored."

commodity ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622233)

claiming that now its replications slaves are crash free

Reminds me of american food adverts, typically "now -free!"

What does "And now with NoSQL" mean? (1)

mlk (18543) | about 7 months ago | (#46622317)

Does it have schema-less mode?
Have they buggered up the SQL parser?
Have they buggered up relations?
Can I separate out data sets and have 'em running on different node?

Re:What does "And now with NoSQL" mean? (2)

mlk (18543) | about 7 months ago | (#46622409)

It looks like it now has a schema-less (Key–value if I'm reading it right) mode as well as a method of dumping anything into said KV data store.

Crash free vs crash-safe (3)

MtHuurne (602934) | about 7 months ago | (#46622357)

The summary says the replication slaves are now crash free, but TFA says they are crash-safe. My database knowledge doesn't go very deep, but I think the latter means they won't lose data on crashes, not that they never crash.

Re:Crash free vs crash-safe (2)

MindStalker (22827) | about 7 months ago | (#46623651)

No such thing as crash-free. Hardware/power/other software can cause crashes as well. Its way better to be crash-safe than crash proof. Crash proof is just waiting to be proved wrong.

Re:Crash free vs crash-safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46626377)

I'm not aware of Maria's specific implementation but, yes, crash-safe generally means that it uses a journalling system so that at worst it loses just the currently open transaction(s) in the event of a power failure or other system crash.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622627)

Why do you want to run a SQL server that has NO SQL support??

Re:Why? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 7 months ago | (#46624547)

"Why do you want to run a SQL server that has NO SQL support??"

That was certainly my first question.

Re:Why? (2)

jlockard (140979) | about 7 months ago | (#46625927)

Because NoSQL, does not stand for what it appears to stand for. It's a really crappy acronym. NoSQL really stands for "Not Only Structured Query Language" as compared to "Doesn't support Structured Query Language". So, something that is "NoSQL" will do SQL styled queries as well as other types of non-SQL queries

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46625985)

NoSQL really stands for "Not Only Structured Query Language"

That's a blatantly obvious back-pedal from when the NoSQL zealots realised that hey, maybe SQL is good for some things after all. I suppose they at least deserve some credit for realising they were wrong, even if they won't admit it out loud.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46628407)

NoSQL was always a misnomer meaning 'not relational'.

This is new? (3, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 7 months ago | (#46623649)

I'd always thought MySQL was NoSQL to begin with. "Datatypes? Integrity? What geezer wants those! LOL! We're webscale!"

(I love NoSQL DBs like Cassandra for the right applications. I haven't ever found an application for which I'd love MySQL.)

Re:This is new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46625349)

Its the Corvair of databases: unsafe at any speed.

Weed out jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46625387)

I weed out the jobs I look by using MySQL.

If the job says MySQL, I look elsewhere, it tells me that the architect was looking at popular rather than robust when making their software decisions.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?