Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Databases Programming Software IT

'Most Important Ever' MySQL Reaches Beta 632

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the they-took-my-precious-krow dept.
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!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Most Important Ever' MySQL Reaches Beta

Comments Filter:
  • by lecithin (745575) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @12:58PM (#12090468)
    Let me guess, MIESQL? Is this where the browser and database are integrated?

  • (not fp) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ari Rahikkala (608969) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @12:59PM (#12090480) Journal
    What, does it come with data integrity, too?
    • Re:(not fp) (Score:5, Informative)

      by LurkerXXX (667952) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:22PM (#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.
      • Re:(not fp) (Score:5, Funny)

        by InfiniteVoid (156157) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:31PM (#12090927) Homepage
        Heh, yeah. My personal favorite is when you run BEGIN TRANSACTION; on a table that doesn't support transactions. It fails silently. Sortof makes that ROLLBACK you call several commands later a bit useless.
  • Information? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:00PM (#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"?
  • by fishdan (569872) * on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:00PM (#12090503) Homepage Journal
    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).

  • Utopia? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rastakid (648791) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:00PM (#12090505) Homepage Journal
    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? (Score:5, Funny)

      by BrynM (217883) * on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:12PM (#12090687) Homepage Journal
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kpharmer (452893) * on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:20PM (#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?
  • by polyhue (38042) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:01PM (#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.
    • by drspliff (652992) <harry.roberts@NOSPAM.midnight-labs.org> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:19PM (#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

    • by jaylee7877 (665673) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:43PM (#12091070) Homepage
      RedHat Enterprise Linux 4.0 ships with MySQL 4.1 (and the server is fully supported unlike RHEL3). Fedora Core 4test1 ships with MySQL 4.1. wish granted.
  • MySQL (Score:5, Funny)

    by Scoria (264473) <slashmail.initialized@org> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:01PM (#12090514) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by DrWhizBang (5333) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:07PM (#12090616) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • by ari_j (90255) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:35PM (#12090982)
      Nobody at Slashdot is ever sarcastic. Ever. Especially me. I've never been sarcastic, and I don't understand sarcasm at all. I can't smile and laugh when someone makes an obvious crack at the fact that the insanely popular web site where his joke will be viewed is run by MySQL. The joke itself is stored in the database he's making fun of. It's a good thing, though, that he wasn't being sarcastic, because people here have a hard time with sarcasm.

      That's right, everyone at Slashdot hates and fails to understand sarcasm. Except moderators. Those guys love the stuff. They eat it up and mod funny things "funny" even though the sarcasm they perceive isn't really there, and the comments are just trolls or flamebait.
  • by instantkarma1 (234104) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:01PM (#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.
  • Other DBs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by drivinghighway61 (812488) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:01PM (#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.
  • Comes with a price (Score:5, Insightful)

    by highcon (857286) <paul AT highcon DOT homeip DOT net> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:02PM (#12090533) Homepage
    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.
  • "Like a real DB" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Space cowboy (13680) * on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:03PM (#12090542) Journal
    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
    • by jbellis (142590) <jonathan@carnage ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:16PM (#12090734) Homepage
      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.
      • by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:53PM (#12091212) Homepage
        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.

        No. If that were true, then they would have seen far greater adoption rates. PostgreSQL has a history of difficult installations -- I tried it years ago and was stymied, then tried it again in 2003 I think and was stuck doing VACUUM (sp?) over and over. It also had some byte-size limits, but I don't think I even understood that complaint or experienced it. In the meantime, for MySQL I just hit "install" and it did, with excellent defaults, so that I did not need to babysit it at all.

        And as for Firebird, no. I worked at Borland, I saw the limitations [slashdot.org] of that monster. I'm not suggesting that Firebird is problematic now -- I suspect it is devoid of problems to the point that I'd prefer it over PostgreSQL. I am merely disputing your assertion that it has been "just as easy" as MySQL. It hasn't. It may be now. But now may be too late.

        Also note that I am not suggesting that MySQL is perfect. But let's focus on legitimate complaints, such as the way it quietly recasts data and stores it, rather than error out. For example, storing dates as 0000-00-00 when your table setup did nothing of the kind. Once that little (in)convenience introduces itself to you for the first time, you really wish you had been using PostgreSQL. Of course, again, it looks like a "compliance" mode is being integrated into MySQL, so by the time I'm ready to ditch MySQL over this, they will have fixed it, and I'll stay. :)

        • I've been using postgresql since 7.0 in 2000. I admit that I never experienced what are largely characterized as the Bad Old Days of 6.x, but I doubt most people calling postgresql hard to setup haven't, either.

          If we talk about 7.x and if "./configure; make install; initdb; set up cron job to run vacuum" makes postgresql hard to install I guess I was wrong, but if it does your threshold of "hard" is going to cause you a lot of pain. :)
        • by IANAAC (692242)

          PostgreSQL has a history of difficult installations -- ...

          Fair game (well, was fair game, anyway). Now consider this:

          If you are converting from another commercial database to either MySQL or PostgreSQL, which do you think will be the more difficult install? My bet is you'll be weeping with MySQL.

          It's easy to say MySQL is an easier install when there's not data or application code. PostgreSQL becomes much more viable once you already have working code.

    • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DogDude (805747) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @02:07PM (#12091437) Homepage
      Sure it's not ACID, but it does well enough for most purposes

      Also works well enough for "most purposes": Flat files, MS Access, etc. That doesn't mean I'm going to build any kind of important app around them.
  • by grahamsz (150076) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:03PM (#12090547) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Dupe (Score:5, Informative)

    by bdigit (132070) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:03PM (#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.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:06PM (#12090606)
    How do you copy and paste verbatim from the linked article, but then spell 'criticism' wrong?

  • Bugfest (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:08PM (#12090637) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by bovinewasteproduct (514128) <gclarkii@@@gbdispatch...com> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:08PM (#12090645) Homepage
    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
  • Real DB? (Score:5, Funny)

    by sulli (195030) * on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:11PM (#12090678) Journal
    It's like it'll be a real DB!

    Then what will Slash use?

  • by blcamp (211756) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:18PM (#12090764) Homepage

    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by vorpal22 (114901) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:19PM (#12090776) Homepage Journal
    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? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jhan (542783) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:20PM (#12090785) Homepage
    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.
  • by russx2 (572301) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:23PM (#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?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      No, the stats aren't "true." They come from a single Evans Data survey whose results are uncharacteristic of all other surveys, including other surveys by Evans Data. Why can be explained if you look at the survey sample.

      Evans pointed out in their release that 90%+ of the respondees did their development on Windows. At the time of the survey, there was no PostgreSQL release version native on Windows. Further, Evans specifically surveyed users who use open source. PostgreSQL doesn't account for 11% of t
  • well (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sv-Manowar (772313) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:29PM (#12090902) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by scorp1us (235526) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:32PM (#12090945) Journal
    ...but legal. The community seems to have over-looked the license change from the 3.xx days. I should know. I had software that was permissible to be run on gratis-MySQL, but as of 4.0, the license changed. I now use PostgresSQL which I throughly advocate, not just because of the license, but because of the feature set and the anal developers.

    There where 3 reasons why MySQL got popular:
    * Free
    * PHP
    * Windows support

    Free has been removed because fo the license change. PHP is a non-issue, these days, and naitive Windows support is now in PostgreSQL 8.0.

    Now, we have a much more level playing feild. On brief analisys we have:
    * Easy replication on MySQL/ Not so easy on PostgreSQL (when only soncidering the free varietyfree)
    * Experimental/new features on MySQL, but throughly tested features on PostgreSQL.
    * Limited license on Mysql, BSD license on Postgres.

    Those three are, IMHO, the remainging differences pertinant to typical DBS selection.

    Then there are the addional features. I like the sandards-compliance and no gothcas (MySQL Timestamp) of PostgreSQL.

    Just my $0.02
    • by Trifthen (40989) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @02:36PM (#12091867) Homepage
      * Easy replication on MySQL/ Not so easy on PostgreSQL
      Not really [mysql.com].

      Go ahead and click on any of the links on that page which describe bugs fixed in a release of the many branches. In almost every one, there's a critical bug that causes replication to fail, turn itself off, crash mysql, or otherwise act in an unpredictable manner. We've wanted to use it for two years now, but every release has some terrible flaw that makes this impossible.

      Heck, they've only recently fixed a bug in the 4.0 branch that's been there since at least 4.0.12 which caused mysql to silently segfault and restart itself. Not to mention the bug before that, which segfaulted, restarted mysql, and randomly corrupted open tables. 4.0 is just now getting to the point where I'd recommend it to other people. I won't touch 5.0 with a mile-long pole until it hits 5.0.20.

    • Add to that, table inheritance, point in time recovery in postgresql...
  • by defile (1059) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:41PM (#12091037) Homepage Journal

    Copied from my blog^Wweb based journal.

    My retort to a mailing list flamewar over the
    enterprise readiness of MySQL vs. Oracle vs. PostgreSQL vs. tin cans and string .

    Once you start getting into "serious" work, or "enterprise" level computing, which is all anyone argues about, every single assumption gets tossed out the window.

    Thought your OS was stable? Yeah, it's pretty stable, but when it gets hit all day every day at 100%, it crashes for some reason every few months. I'd love to say that Linux is the exception here, but well, it isn't.

    Maybe you bought the highest quality disks? And avoided the "bad" vendor? Wrong! This year the bad vendor is the one you bought plenty of! Looks like your recovery plan didn't consider that 25% of your disks would fail in the first year!

    Thought you had enough RAM? You don't! And you can't add more because you're on a 32-bit platform. Sucker! Start migrating to 64-bit and learn a whole new bunch of gotchas the hard way.

    Hey! This RAID adapter has an awfully funny glitch! When you pop a brand new disk in, if you reboot, it treats it as a whole new array, and the funniest part is that it renumbers all of the other arrays! Kernel panic: can't mount root device! What a laugh! Good thing we have RAID here to give us added reliability!

    Thought you'd never max out that fridge computer? Well, you just did. It looks like your developers decide to get sloppy when they think they have infinite capacity. A couple of weeks of performance analysis and retuning the algorithms instead of doing real new work!

    Thought that replication setup would scale infinitely? Well, infinitely actually means 10,000 queries/sec. Yup, that's the ceiling. No choice now but to re-architect the whole system into a decentralized dataset. Hey, since it's all so decentralized, lets just store CSV files! Added bonus: management types love it!

    Six months of re-engineering to decentralize the whole system, and another six months to phase it in. And it sure will require downtime!

    For all of the talk of mission critical feature this and enterprise functionality that, in the end, these "real work" loads are handled by the resourcefulness of your people, because no platform is going to even come close to solving all of your problems.

    Package X vs. package Y does not make a difference in the big picture. If only. MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, BerkeleyDB, or peach fuzz? The answer is obvious: pick the one your team is most capable and most comfortable with. Got it? Great! You've just solved the easiest problem you're ever going to have.

    Bah! Humbug.

  • by mellon (7048) * on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:44PM (#12091084) Homepage
    One of the things that's a real problem for me with MySQL is the places where MySQL doesn't follow the SQL language standard. This means that MySQL scripts typically only run against MySQL. This is probably just ignorance on my part - perhaps they fixed this long ago, and people are just coding to the old standard - but does anybody know anything about this? I wasn't able to find anything about it in the press release.
  • by Osty (16825) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:46PM (#12091119)

    In the ensuing 10 years, they've thoroughly corrupted the minds of young programmers and DBAs by making them think it's okay to sacrifice data integrity for the illusion of speed ("illusion", because mysql chokes when you get into complex data sets or queries; the vaunted speed of mysql only applies when you're working with a data set so simple you could represent it with flat files or xml without any difficulty). That it's okay to work around the shortcomings of a RDBMS in your application code (no, I am not going to implement transactions, referential integrity, or subqueries in my application code. That's just stupid). That you don't need views or sub-selects or triggers or stored procedures. That adding those features actually slows down your RDBMS (well, yeah, if you implement them poorly).

    While it's nice to see that they'll finally support most of the features of a proper RDBMS, it's too little too late. Even if they ship tomorrow it'll be years before this new version is ubiquitous (how many ISPs and hosting providers are still running an ancient 3.x version of MySQL?). The best way for them to have "fixed" those 10 years of criticism was never to have allowed the criticism in the first place -- by fully implementing an RDBMS, or at least acknowledging the benefits of the features you don't implement, like foreign keys, rather than spouting out crap about how adding those features will slow things down, and any "smart" programmer can do without them anyway. At least that way they could've avoided looking like hypocrites.

    "You don't need transactions. Transactions just slow things down. Look, we have table-level locks. Use those. You can ensure data integrity from your application by using table-level locks. Performance concerns on locking a full table to update a single row? What?" and then, "Would you look at that? Transactions! You can get them if you use this new table type. Of course, if you don't have that new table type and you try to use it, or you do have the new table type but you don't explicitly mark your tables as that new type, you're not going to get transactions. Oh, we won't fail, we'll just silently not open a transaction, and silently not rollback or commit when you ask us to."

    "Sub-selects? Sub-selects are slow. Why would you need sub-selects when you can do two queries, pull all of that data back to your application (because you don't need stored procedures either), and mimic the sub-select there?" and then, "Oo! Sub-selects! Pretty!"

    etc ...

    • Amen! I've posted my criticisms of MySQL here before, only to be taken to task by the unwashed masses of MySQL "admins".

      The reality of the matter (that you articulated quite eloquently) is that MySQL has never been a true RDBMS due to it's lack of features. The aspect you mentioned of MySQL encouraging poor development habits is one that I hadn't thought to mention, though I deal with it on a daily basis.

      Far too often, I find myself assigned to clean up after several developers in another department
  • Question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Spoonman (634311) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:50PM (#12091178) Homepage
    What about bi-directional replication? I know, t'ain't easy, but is it easier now?
  • My prediction (Score:3, Informative)

    by Aumaden (598628) <Devon DOT C DOT Miller AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:57PM (#12091273) Journal
    Prognosticator that I am, I predict that MySQL 5 will achieve release status between April 18 and 21 [mysqluc.com].
  • by hey! (33014) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @02:00PM (#12091327) Homepage Journal
    This can be done in Oracle and I believe Postgres. Not only do they perform better than native stored procedure languages, they potentially allow you to take code that benefits from being in the database tier and make it portable.
  • LOL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zebra_X (13249) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @02:15PM (#12091552)
    In one release they will get the features out there - and the next 4 or 5 releases will be spent optimizing performance. It's a step in the right direction - but it will take more time for MySQL to be ready for prime time.
  • i'm confused.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by drew (2081) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @02:31PM (#12091791) Homepage
    So, are they just going to pretend that 10 years worth of flaming on message boards, mailing lists, etc. about how you don't really want those features in your rdbms because you can just implement them in application code without slowing down the database never actually happened?
  • Opinions... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danheskett (178529) <danheskett@NospAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @02:46PM (#12092027)
    I worked with a group of professionals to port an COM+/MSSQL project to PHP/MySQL3.x platform.

    A 150GB database is very lower mid-range for a real-world database. Even with very "highly optimized" replacements of stored procedures and well-designed queries to replace views, and every tweak we could find or think of, they could never match the performance the client was used to on the old platform, even with more powerful hardware. After months of tweaking, the project failed, and I had to eat a lot of billable hours. The database choked down with any significant INSERT or UPDATE activity. In testing and demos, it was great - fast and zippy. When we threw the switch for a simulation of a real days work logged from the live system, the world nearly ended -- a 24 hr day of work for the live system took at our best 28 hours. For example, we had problems with queries that should require only indexed fields scanning an entire table for any given query. These are the problems you may never notice if you just run a small website from MySQL, but will hurt you when you have a table with 100M records in it.

    I hope and pray that 5.x allows me to port this application. I'd love to get the whole thing end to end on a free platform. (Postgres wouldn't fly with the customer at the time because of vague issues with not knowing the product, not wanting to gamble on another OSS project, etc).

    Everything about getting this app to MySQL was a nightmare. It was a complete non-stop cluster.. well.. you can imagine. By the time the project was called off I had devoted my most skilled programmer to looking for bottlenecks in and hacking MySQL code.

    We revisited the effort when the 4.x series hit its stride, but were afraid of the chance of failure again. We noticed that hard limits had been raised, and that the client lib was solidly performing, but, well, we never got things to that level where it beat what was already in place.

    Right now the database stands at 550GB or so (the server was upgraded to SQL2000 a while back [without incident, I may add]). If had of stuck with MySQL the first time through... I shudder to think where things would be 2+ years later. Failure, in this case, probably saved a lot of trouble.

    So, to the educated masses: can anyone speculate about this releases capabilities? The list of requirements would be:

    550GB, projected to be 1TB by 2007?

    2500 tables

    Full-text searching in approximately 1500 tables

    Queries that routinely join 25-150 tables

    ~800 stored procedures

    ~1500 views

    ~1000 triggers

    500-750 inserts/updates per second average, 20000 inserts per second peak, (approximately 40M new rows per day)

    1800-2500 queries per second average, 15000 queries per second peak

    Is MySQL 5.x the answer to my prayers? Or just a cruel reminder of why MS software costs what it does?

    • Re:Opinions... (Score:3, Informative)

      by quantum bit (225091)
      (Postgres wouldn't fly with the customer at the time because of vague issues with not knowing the product, not wanting to gamble on another OSS project, etc)

      Gaaaaah! The tragedy of your story is that Postgres quite likely would have worked well for the project your describe. MSSQL still uses row locking, so Postgresql > MSSQL for loads with high insert/transaction rates and many concurrent queries.

      MySQL is great for simple stuff but absolutely bogs down when you throw anything complex at it. Postgr
  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@l y n x . b c .ca> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @03:00PM (#12092224) Journal
    I must really sound like a broken record... I distinctly recall asking _exactly_ the same question when the announcement for PostgreSQL 8.0 appeared on slashdot.
  • too late (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danharan (714822) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @04:36PM (#12093543) Journal
    From TFA:
    MySQL is the most widely used open source database, according to a Evans Data Corporation survey released in January. It accounted for 40 percent of open source database deployments, while Firebird and PostgreSQL accounted for 39 percent and 11 percent of deployments respectively.
    Since Firebird is expected to hit 2.0 sometime soon, I'd expect them to give MySQL some competition. And how can anyone on /. forget PG?

    Since I'm using Hibernate for most new development, there's nothing stopping me from looking at the more advanced RDBMSs out there. Given how MySQL told us we were wimps for wanting things such as triggers and FKs, I don't really trust them to keep understanding what I need as a developer.
  • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @10:32PM (#12096819)
    Without proper ACID compliance, everything else is decoration. The recent failure of one of the Wikipedia MySQL servers to start up again after a power failure proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MySQL is not ACID compliant.

    (Was the corruption due to a disk lying about cache flush/disable? Easy, test the disk. If it doesn't lie, then MySQL was the culprit.)

Maternity pay? Now every Tom, Dick and Harry will get pregnant. -- Malcolm Smith

Working...