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!

'Most Important Ever' MySQL Reaches Beta

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the they-took-my-precious-krow dept.

Databases 632

An anonymous reader writes "The open source database company says it is 'fixing 10 years of critcism in one release', and is aiming at boosting enterprise take-up." Stored procedures. Triggers. Views. It's like it'll be a real DB!

cancel ×

632 comments

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

Most Important Ever? (4, Funny)

lecithin (745575) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090468)

Let me guess, MIESQL? Is this where the browser and database are integrated?

Krow? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090494)

from the they-took-my-precious-krow dept.

Krow [tripod.com] or Krow [krow.net]
Poor krow indeed. How we shall miss her/him.


Google cache of first krow [64.233.179.104]
Second [64.233.179.104]

Re:Most Important Ever? (2, Funny)

tuxnduke (665112) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090842)

Yeah, I'd vote for MIESQL (btw mies is Finnish and means man).. so it would suit the up'n'coming improved mysql very well.

Mysql 5.0, - the manly edition with triggers !

Re:Most Important Ever? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090864)

MiEsql. That must be Spanish for MySql!

Spanish often puts Es in front of words that start with S, for example:
Latin "stare" -> estar

status -> estado
I think there is some linguistic term for this added "eh" sound, but I don't remember what it was. And of course mi is Spanish for "my"...
My Sql -> Mi Esql.
(A todos lectores hispanos: siento por haberte ofendido y defamado la lengua. Solamente soy gringo tonto con chistes malos.)

Re:Most Important Ever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090884)

Sounds just like "MySQL". No, really, read it out...

link to TF Change Log or TF What's New (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090901)

/. editors are on an early April 1st workday

worst fp... ever! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090472)

see subj, kthankx!

(not fp) (5, Funny)

Ari Rahikkala (608969) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090480)

What, does it come with data integrity, too?

Re:(not fp) (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090519)

as in it supports foreign keys in a non-suck manner?

Re:(not fp) (4, Informative)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090813)

And did they fix it so that you input out of bounds data in a field that has constraints on it, it throws an error rather than just silently changing your input to a value it likes? Silent data corruption kinda sucks... That's why I use Postgres.

Beta? (2, Informative)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090484)

A beta of the next major version of open source database MySQL was released on Monday and includes supports for a number of features that could appeal to corporate users.

Beta?

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/news-5-0-x.html [mysql.com]

As you can see, MySQL 5.0.3 is still in alpha status. It hasn't reached Beta yet.

I'm not sure where the whole "beta" thing came from. Maybe 5.0.4 will be beta, but I don't believe 5.0.3 is.

Re:Beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090585)

It *is* a beta release:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/news-5-0-3.html [mysql.com]

D.1.2. Changes in release 5.0.3 (23 Mar 2005)

Note: This Beta release, as any other pre-production release, should not be installed
blah blah blah

Re:Beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090629)

From http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/news-5-0-3.html [mysql.com] :
Note: This Beta release, as any other pre-production release, [...]


Also, the Freshmeat announcement for 5.0.3 (sent out on Monday) said:

The changes in this release are as follows:

This version now includes support for stored procedures, triggers,
views, and many other features. This is the first Beta release in the
5.0 series. All attention will now be focused on fixing bugs and
stabilizing 5.0 for later production release.

Replication? Clustering? (0)

Axe (11122) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090487)

Can it do that? I would think it is more important for "enterprise" tasks.

Re:Replication? Clustering? (1)

bizmark22 (823743) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090529)

I can replicate and cluster, but it hasn't helped me with women yet... maybe I should get out my "most important man ever" tshirt...

Re:Replication? Clustering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090546)

That was in the 4.0 release. Master-Slave, Master-Master. Welcome to a couple years ago.

HAND, HTH, STFU & RTFM.

Re:Replication? Clustering? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090894)

Let me guess. You're a virgin.

Re:Replication? Clustering? (4, Informative)

fishdan (569872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090557)

yes, all those things. Replication has been around for quite a long time -- very easy to configure too.

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/replication.html [mysql.com]

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mysql-cluster-ov erview.html [mysql.com]

Re:Replication? Clustering? (1)

mortonda (5175) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090801)

This clustering solution seems to be "memory only", ie, you have to have a monster server farm, as all data is kept in memory. Not very usefull yet.

If somone can better explain "in-memory storage" and prove me wrong, please do...

Re:Replication? Clustering? (1)

flu1d (664635) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090605)

Perhaps you should find out what DB you just [slashdot.org] posted on ;)

Re:Replication? Clustering? (4, Informative)

jbellis (142590) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090676)

How useful is it to be able to scale to large numbers of servers if your database doesn't even support the features your application developers need?

The number of companies who NEED clustering is much, much smaller than the number who need triggers, views, etc. No database professional would touch a product that doesn't support those with a ten foot pole, which is why people who actually know databases (as opposed to your average 50-pages-of-PHP newbie) have disdained MySQL for so long.

Information? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090496)

How about linking to an article or page that actually has some useful informtion about what is going to be in the release that makes it "the most important ever"?

Re:Information? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090671)

How about linking to an article or page that actually has some useful informtion about what is going to be in the release that makes it "the most important ever"?

Here you go [slashdot.org] .

Re:Information? (1)

Tuffsnake (767507) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090706)

here you go [slashdot.org]

being a paying customer... (4, Informative)

fishdan (569872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090503)

I just finished the Using and Managing [mysql.com] mysql course in Boston. VERY much worth it btw if you're like me -- A developer and not a true DBA who supports the Database because there's noone else.

It's astonishing how far mysql has come. I'd been using 3.23 since before the dawn of time. Like most users of my ilk, I'd hacked alot of "databasish" functions together at the application level. My dilemma now is throwing away all that work to migrate to something I know is better. But there's no doubt that replication, triggers etc are all worth it.

The *best* thing that I got out of the class though, was to talk freely with the MySQL guys about their reality of trying to make a living with a "mostly" free product. They convinced me to buy a membership in MySQL Network [mysql.com] which is essentially support that I probably won't use. This upgrade they are turning out though is good enough to make me WANT to pay (once).

Re:being a paying customer... (2, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090624)

Am I the only one sharing a chuckle at the thought of a bunch of typically skilled MySQL users with triggers at their disposal?

I can hear the hard drives grinding now

Re:being a paying customer... (2, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090755)

As someone who has been developing enterprise apps with MySQL for a while now, I'll answer this, even though I'm 99.44% sure you're trolling: what we've always done, so far, is put all the triggers in the application layer. Now we can make "real" triggers in the DB layer, but guess what? The logic is exactly the same.

Given the widespread use of MySQL to run some very complex systems, I rather suspect that you, like most anti-MySQL trolls, have no idea of what the "typically skilled MySQL user" actually does. Yes, there are lots of people who pick it up because it's free, easy to use, and widely known who have no business doing any kind of DB work. There are also those of us -- a lot more than you think -- who make our living at it and know exactly what we're doing.

Re:being a paying customer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090839)

You're probably not the only one, since you're SHARING a chuckle. :+P

Re:being a paying customer... (1)

destiney (149922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090847)


there's no doubt that replication, triggers etc are all worth it

MySQL has had replication for a long time already.

Utopia? (3, Insightful)

rastakid (648791) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090505)

The open source database company says it is 'fixing 10 years of critcism in one release'

If they can fix 10 years of criticiscm in one release, why couldn't do that before? Or maybe in several fixes rolled out within the 10 years?

Re:Utopia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090684)

Showmanship. Marketing does matter.

Re:Utopia? (5, Funny)

BrynM (217883) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090687)

If they can fix 10 years of criticiscm in one release...
Imagine the change log...
  • Fixed bug causing unhandled exception under Win32
  • Optimized internal table structure for better performance
  • Silenced 10 years of criticism and name calling
  • Win32 installer now creates log file in....

Re:Utopia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090744)

probably because avoiding critisiscm doesn't rank very high when you want to design a open source, fairly high performance database.

I think it would be like this:
Stability..
Security..
Speed...
Portabil ity...
Code readability... .... (down towards the bottom of the list)
Avoiding snobish critism.
Avoiding unfavorable Oracle comparisions
Avoiding unfavorable PostgreSQL comparisions.

I think the point of the new release was to incorpoate new features, making 10 years of critiscm completely irrelevent was just a happy side effect and not the ACTUAL goal.

Re:Utopia? (4, Insightful)

kpharmer (452893) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090787)

> If they can fix 10 years of criticiscm in one release, why couldn't do that before? Or maybe in
> several fixes rolled out within the 10 years?

If you recall, their management made the (unconvincing) argument that 99% of the time people didn't need fluff like:
* referential integrity (pk & fk constraints)
* views
* triggers
* stored procedures

So, they never implemented this because they had been arguing that nobody needs it anway. Nevermind that it's been standard fare for over twenty years.

Personally, although I'm glad to see them support views, I would rather have them clean up their exception-handling than add triggers & stored procedures right away. The problems with silent errors, silent truncation of strings & integers, date validation errors, etc are far more serious than what they are adding in this *beta* release.

Maybe in five years that'll be the release that fixes 15 years of criticism?

Terri Schiavo, dead at 41 (0, Offtopic)

trollercoaster (250101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090506)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - famous vegetable/right-wing tool Terri Schiavo was found dead in her Florida hospice this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss her - even if you didn't enjoy her work, there's no denying her contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Terri Schiavo, dead at 41 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090582)

About damned time

Re:Terri Schiavo, dead at 41 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090667)

If you miss Terri, you can still enjoy her blog [blogspot.com] .

Re:Terri Schiavo, dead at 41 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090848)

I only wish. Unfortunately she is still alive and kicking.

As an aside, I have one question that has been bothering me: I have always heard and read that a person can survive for only a few (like 2-3)days without water. Schiavo has been off her feeding tube for 12 days now, yet is still alive. Can someone explain this apparent disparity for me?

Meanwhile, back in 3.23.x land... (5, Insightful)

polyhue (38042) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090513)

A more impressive feat would be to get ISPs who do lots of low-end hosting to actually update from the 3.23.x series for starters... which would probably mean Redhat, Debian, etc. need to ship it. So those users will be seeing this version in... 2008 maybe. 2012. Right after Longhorn comes out.

Re:Meanwhile, back in 3.23.x land... (5, Insightful)

drspliff (652992) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090771)

Thats because a lot of people who 'run web hosting companies' know jack about administration, security and what their users really want, and are just jumping on the internet business bandwaggon.

It's sad to say, but now with products like Helm, Ensim Webppliance etc. anybody can run a hosting business.

Anyway, to get to my point (and the end of a rant), because there are a lot of webhosts detatched from 'all that funny dos stuff at the backend' upgrading to newer versions of services etc. can be non-trivial if there isn't a button on their control panel to do it.

If you have any spare time and want to see for yourself, go traul through the CPanel message boards for threads you'd expect from a unix green-horn, but are actually coming from admins of supposidly 'reliable and respected' hosting companies.

While it will be a few months into the mysql 5 general release before you start seeing it being used in the hosting industry (I know several people who are just switching over from 4.0 to 4.1), the benifits for developers will be great (in the long run).

I expect to see a new batch of commercial and open source development spured by the growing stability of mysql 5, but also an increase of help requests from newcomers to web development.

Btw: I think there should be a new moderator option.. Rant -2

Re:Meanwhile, back in 3.23.x land... (2, Insightful)

spectrm (872033) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090891)

So those users will be seeing this version in... 2008 maybe. 2012. Right after Longhorn comes out. I think you're being a little too optimistic about Longhorn

MySQL (5, Funny)

Scoria (264473) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090514)

Store procedures. Triggers. Views. It's like it'll be a real DB!

So, the Slashdot editor, whose own Web site uses MySQL, is actively trolling other MySQL users in the article summary? Hilarious!

Re:MySQL (4, Funny)

DrWhizBang (5333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090616)

As a MySQL user, I believe he is entitled to troll. I use MySQL myself, and I can confirm it is indeed as trollworthy as it is useful.

Re:MySQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090786)

Then why don't you pony up a few bucks for Oracle or DB2, ya cheap bastid?

Re:MySQL (2, Funny)

wootest (694923) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090784)

Self critisism is good. Even I - ever the daft prick - know that.

What about foreign keys? (2, Interesting)

eibon (825176) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090517)

TFA doesn't mention anything about foreign key relationships, but it sounds more than a little weird to implement views, triggers and stored procs before FKs. Anyone know?

Re:What about foreign keys? (2, Informative)

drspliff (652992) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090566)

MySQL already has foreign key support when using InnoDB tables. And from what i've seen it's very stable.

Re:What about foreign keys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090587)

Look at the InnoDB option for MySQL. RI (aka FK) existed in 4.0 releases.

HAND, HTH, STFU & RTFM

Sounds like troube brewing (4, Insightful)

instantkarma1 (234104) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090522)

Let's see....throwing everything and the kicthen sink into one release can't possibly affect stability, right?

I love MySQL, and use it, as well as PostgreSQL and Oracle, depending on the project. However, if stability or data integrity becomes an issue because of all these feature additions allowing them to play with the big boys, I'll drop MySQL in a heartbeat.

If your database isn't reliable, it nothing else really matters.

Re:Sounds like troube brewing (1, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090704)

It seems to me that PostgreSQL and MySQL have been following different paths converging on the same goal (a powerful, usable, stable DBMS): the PostgreSQL philosophy is to throw in everything and the kitchen sink and then make it work right, whereas the MySQL approach is to add things one at a time, making sure that everything works right from the beginning. It's possible that the endless sniping has caused the MySQL team to abandon its careful development process, but I don't see any evidence of that so far.

I've used MySQL and PostgreSQL both extensively over the years, as well as working with commercial DBMSs including Oracle and SQL Server. MySQL's lack of features has certainly been a frustration, but I keep coming back to it because what it does, it does very very well. If the MySQL team has managed to produce a "real" DBMS that works as well as previous versions, then it will be damn near perfect.

Re:Sounds like troube brewing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090806)

the MySQL approach is to add things one at a time, making sure that everything works right from the beginning.

I don't think that's true at all. The MySQL team have a cavalier attitude to data integrity. It's more like "make it store data, then make it fast, then add a feature people are asking for", with data integrity coming... well, never.

The PostgreSQL team, on the other hand, have "make it store data correctly, then add a feature people are asking for, then make it fast".

If this were something like KDE or GNOME we were talking about, then I would have no real complaint about MySQL developers' attitudes. But this is a DATABASE! It's whole purpose is to store data. If it can't do that reliably, why on earth should anybody treat it as anything other than a student's hobby project?

Re:Sounds like troube brewing (2, Informative)

mikaelhg (47691) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090883)

MySQL isn't free as in free beer anymore, for non-GPL projects, now that they have GPLd their JDBC and ODBC drivers.

Other DBs (4, Interesting)

drivinghighway61 (812488) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090525)

This is certainly good news for MySQL, but many open-source advocates forget about other open-source DBs like PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] , which has had these features for a while. But competition is always good, and it's good to see MySQL stepping up its value.

Re:Other DBs (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090802)

We can't forget about PostgreSQL, because any mention of MySQL on /. inevitably brings forth a flood of "MySQL 5vX0rZ PostgreSQL r0X0Rz" trolls. Not saying you're one of those trolls, you understand, but I honestly don't think there's any lack of awareness of PostgreSQL in the F/OSS DB world, at all.

MySQL is not a DB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090531)

It's a DBMS.

Comes with a price (5, Insightful)

highcon (857286) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090533)

And then suddenly, MySQL isn't quite so fast. It used to be, if you need a speedy db and don't need all the fancy features (like integrity) you choose MySQL. If you want to sacrifice a little speed but need features, you got PostgreSQL. Products should stick to what they're good at.

Re:Comes with a price (1)

silverbolt (578120) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090831)

..... and don't need all the fancy features (like integrity)...

Is integrity a fancy feature ? Wow !

If data integrity is not present, I don't want that db near my application ever ...

Re:Comes with a price (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090838)

If you want speed and don't care about some integrty features, install or keep 4.1 or 3.23. If you already have a mysql installation and want enterprise level features, but don't want to learn/pay for a new system, install 5.x.

Bottom line, 3.23 and 4.1 are stuck to what they are good at.

Re:Comes with a price (1)

2starr (202647) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090843)

Do you know this or are you guessing? Since it just went BETA, I doubt you have any real numbers about the performance difference in release code.

Re: alternatives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090867)

from now on we have to change our minds. We have (at least) two open source DB projects competing to get the same objetive: compete for enterprise level quality DB.

Is there any simple database focusing only in simplicity and fast read queries?

sqlite may be useful for the simpler tasks (1)

ubiquitin (28396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090868)

As mysql bulks up, if you still want wicked-fast raw inserts with low-overhead engine, consider sqlite [sqlite.org] . Personally, I'm eager to get the triggers, views and stored procedures, as it will enable PHP apps to mature a bit.

10 years of critism (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090538)

Resolved by just switching to the postgres source instead.

"Like a real DB" (3, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090542)

Considering that MySQL probably runs more databases than all the others put together (it being the poster-child for most OSS projects involving DB's), I think that's a little harsh. Sure it's not ACID, but it does well enough for most purposes...

As a data-point:

simon% mysqladmin ver
mysqladmin Ver 8.40 Distrib 4.0.18, for suse-linux on x86_64
Copyright (C) 2000 MySQL AB & MySQL Finland AB & TCX DataKonsult AB
This software comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software,
and you are welcome to modify and redistribute it under the GPL license

Server version 4.0.18-Max
Protocol version 10
Connection Localhost via UNIX socket
UNIX socket /opt/mysql/mysql.sock
Uptime: 5 days 21 hours 32 min 52 sec

Threads: 2 Questions: 103591631 Slow queries: 101 Opens: 181809 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 64 Queries per second avg: 203.291 ... the only reason it's only 5 days is a server upgrade, but its performance seems pretty "real" to me :-)

Simon

get over it already (4, Insightful)

jbellis (142590) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090734)

if I read "well enough for most purposes" by a mysql fanboy one more time I will have to start drinking before noon.

popularity isn't proof of clue, guys. How many people run windows, right?

with postgresql and firebird there have long been available real open-source databases that are just as easy to get up and running as MySQL, but won't hamstring you when you start to learn more.

I'm glad to see MySQL joining the club, but it must be shocking for the "we don't need no steenkeeng logic in the database" fanboys to adjust... Parent is case in point, I guess.

Re:get over it already (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090870)

Sorry, did you miss the part where it's done 103 million queries in the last 5 days ? At an average of 203 per second! As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty good performance, and that's what I want.

Look, you might want (and hell you may even need) all the bells and whistles, but for most people it's a matter of "how big is mine".

There's something decidedly irritating about being called a 'fanboy' when you're getting excellent service out of something, and you're happy with that.

Re:"Like a real DB" (1, Funny)

tacocat (527354) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090824)

Considering that MySQL probably runs more databases than all the others put together (it being the poster-child for most OSS projects involving DB's), I think that's a little harsh. Sure it's not ACID, but it does well enough for most purposes...

As does a spreadsheet.

As does Windows.

As does my right hand...

Who's still using mysql? (3, Interesting)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090547)

Seems like sqlite or hsqldb make more sense on the low end and as always there are better (though often more expensive) options on the high end.

It's great for prototyping things, but i just can't imagine running something critical on it.

parent is a fudder (0)

fishdan (569872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090758)

Something critical like...Wikipedia? [wikipedia.com] Wikipedia's flight from Hurricane Charley was well documented [frassle.net] , including their use of mysqldump in disaster preparations.

Dupe (5, Informative)

bdigit (132070) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090549)

Wow Taco, all I did was search mysql and bam

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 3/28/1856255&tid=221&tid=8/ [slashdot.org]

Expect more hatemail.

Re:Dupe (1)

unixbum (720776) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090746)

RTFA, well actually the submission in this case... this is a ZDNet Review, not a release announcement.

Re:Dupe (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090818)

Wow... this, then the GTA multiplayer (which was a dupe from 2003), and the whole debacle last night where he actually yelled in his comment line. Maybe he should just hand over his editing privleges for the day. He's mentioned he's sick in his JE... maybe thats affecting his judgement?

Right on! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090555)

Just last week I was complaining that MySQL didn't pay me 1 billion dollars. Thanks MySQL!

Most important evar!! (4, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090606)

How do you copy and paste verbatim from the linked article, but then spell 'criticism' wrong?

Re:Most important evar!! (1)

maxjenius22 (560382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090715)

very carefully?

Bugfest (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090637)

And it will take 10 more years of use to find and address all the bugs in this huge, overdue upgrade. One reason the persistent incremental changes in open-source is better for users, is that we get started on finding and fixing bugs earlier, without a dizzying array of them from which to choose.

values (2, Interesting)

maxjenius22 (560382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090640)

So it doesn't randomly pick a value when the user tries to insert something invalid???

Why would I switch from PostgreSQL now?

Re:values (2, Insightful)

maxjenius22 (560382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090679)

Honestly, why would anyone use mysql when it ignores foreign key constraints and corrupts data by inserting arbitrary values? What advantage does it have over postgres, which is also free and actually supports data integrity?

Everything in one release? (2, Insightful)

bovinewasteproduct (514128) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090645)

I don't know about you, but the thought of someone adding that many core features at one time scares me. They should have renamed it and called it version 1.0, because thats what it really is....

Plus, are they following the ANSI standards for the features that have them? If so, they are going to break compatiability with prior versions.
I would wait until atleast version 5.1 before even thinking about using it.

BWP

Store procedures are somewhat limited (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090654)

They currently only work with Kmart.

How about Check Constraints.. TO_DATE.. etc (1)

myrdred (597891) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090666)

Are those also present? I know the latest stable release lacks many things... just how many are being added in 5.0? The article seems to be sparse on details. Anyone have a more detailed feature-list of MySQL 5?

Errors in MySQL (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090672)

I wonder if they will have thought of correcting a few pertinent errors [sql-info.de] in this new release ...

Real DB? (4, Funny)

sulli (195030) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090678)

It's like it'll be a real DB!

Then what will Slash use?

Re:Real DB? (1)

dickeya (733264) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090781)

I didn't realize he had time to administer DBs outside of Velvet Revolver.

Re:Real DB? (1)

SmokeHalo (783772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090887)

Sure, he uses MyGTR.

Re:Real DB? (2, Funny)

wootest (694923) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090817)

Post-it notes on a big wall, rearranged by monkeys.

Re:Real DB? (5, Funny)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090833)

Why, version 3.2, of course -- to match the version of HTML they are almost confirming to.

Really?! (0, Flamebait)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090689)

Store procedures. Triggers. Views. It's like it'll be a real DB!

My ghod, I've been listening to the FOSS nuts argue this very thing for six years! I mean, if I were any more gullible I'd actually believe that MySQL was better than SQL Server and Oracle and DB2! In 1998!

will they fix gotchas too? (0, Troll)

RelliK (4466) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090710)

Wake me up when they fix this [sql-info.de] . Oh, and are they finally adding an "enterprise feature" called "subselect"?

PostreSQL an option? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12090757)

I don't know all the details between the two, but if you need all of these things now wouldn't it be possible to use PostreSQL?

I know that it's a bit of a 'religious' argument, but can some explain why wouldn't use PostreSQL?

Wake me up when it goes to production. (2, Insightful)

blcamp (211756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090764)


Normally I put in beta software on my box (never in any production units, mind you... just my own personal box) just to "kick the tires" and see whether a new version of an app or some new piece of technology is going to get the job done.

But not databases. I won't even mess with alpha, beta or even release candidates of ANY database software until it is RTMed or "gold". It's gotta work and work right, or there's no point messing with it. I don't want any suprises with database system issues when working on any projects... not even in the earliest development stages.

I'd just as soon see that MySQL take thier time and get 5.x released when it is ready. And when it is released, I hope it works RIGHT.

Article unreadable (4, Informative)

vorpal22 (114901) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090776)

The article was unreadable. I went to the page and was presented with a large, intrusive flash-based (I believe) advertisement that refused to let me read the text until it was over, and given the obnoxious nature of the ad, that's not a feasible option, IMO.

At what cost? (3, Interesting)

Jhan (542783) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090785)

So now MySQL is a "real DBE". Does that mean this new version is no longer 5-10 times faster than the "real DBE" (Informix) that we abandoned for the one reason that MySQL has extreme performance?

I do hope all these new features are either off by default or easily turned off.

Firebird more popular than Postgresql? (3, Interesting)

russx2 (572301) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090828)

From the article:

"It [MySQL] accounted for 40 percent of open source database deployments, while Firebird and PostgreSQL accounted for 39 percent and 11 percent of deployments respectively."

Are these stats really true? Despite being a firebird user myself, I'd always assumed postgresql was a much bigger, more widely used product.

Unless of course the author is including *all* databases based on the Interbase code in that percentage?

Core feature or table type feature? (2, Interesting)

aweiland (237773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090853)

Some of the people making comments haven't really hit on one of interesting things in MySQL, the ability to use different table types.

For instance you can't do transactions with MyISAM, but you can with InnoDB. You pick what you need.

I think the question that needs to be asked is where in the mysql engine will these features be added? Into the core? Into the MyISAM tables? In a new table type (i.e. MyISAM2)?

well (2, Interesting)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 9 years ago | (#12090902)

this is great news for the open source database community, but i can't help but wonder if we shouldn't be more interested in PostGreSql instead, given it's more open license terms

MySql a.b. have previously shown their willingness to change their license terms and this has manifested itself in issues with projects like PHP who notably have changed to pushing SQLite more heavily with PHP5.
Load More 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>