Google Releases MySQL Enhancements 208
An anonymous reader noted that "Google has released its internally developed enhancements to MySQL to the open source community this week. Changes include improvements in replication, high availability configuration, and performance." It'll be interesting to see if the changes they made are of interest to other places using MySQL.
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
(I'm not even trolling, I do want to know if they fixed that)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google-y goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, now this is how it's supposed to work. No bull like, "We're releasing improvements as MSN-SQL," or any other nonsense. Yay Google.
Wont be included in MYSQL... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fit for duty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now imagine them in Google's data centers.
Which, in fact, is where they are. Now do you see?
Re:Wont be included in MYSQL... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wont be included in MYSQL... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Em
Re:This illustrates a problem with commercial OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this illustrates a problem with trying to sell OSS as if it were closed source software, instead of relying upon contract work for improvements, customizations, services, and other closed source add ons or using that OSS as a tool yourself for some other market.
Re:Hep Me Understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a read-only situation there's no need for full ACID compliance. I've seen some contrivances where MySQL reads happen from myASM databases, and the writes go into an InnoDB database, and something on the backend happens to replicates the changes into the 'read-only' databases reliably. I've just never had, myself, an application so speed critical that it was worth doing that instead of doing PostgreSQL for everything. But my use cases aren't everybody's use cases.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
- The database doesn't corrupt tables. Ever.
- If the power fails or the kernel goes away at an arbitrary instant, then when the database starts up again all of the data will be there, with committed transactions entirely present and uncommitted ones entirely gone.
Secondly, it's not justified to just assume that MySQL will be faster even with it's limits on data integrity. It depends on your workload. Consider differences in locking strategy and query plans, for example. There's a benchmark showing scaling behaviour in one particular set of circumstances here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/674/6 [tweakers.net] ; this shows a fairly striking difference in scaling with load on a specific machine.
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, we can't all be gurus, but I still need to back up my tables every so often.
Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wont be included in MYSQL... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
The management interface for PG is on-par with SQL Server Studio; I use both on a daily basis. It's also "20 minutes to set up and start populating data". As an added plus, Postgres has all of the "standard" syntax and referential data integrity turned on out of the box.
You use MySQL if: a) you're developing a LAMP app for an inexpensive webhost that only allows MySQL databases, or b) all of your developers cut their teeth on MySQL and therefore productivity will drop if you ask them to use standard compliant syntax, or c) You're using an app (like SugarCRM or WordPress), the developers of which insisted on using funky MySQL-only features (instead of standard portable syntax) and therefore it's too much work to port to a standard syntax.
In all other cases, you use Postgres or some other commercial database. Postgres scales much better than InnoDB on any combination of a) larger numbers of read-write transactions, b) larger numbers of connections, c) more processors, d) larger datasets (including and beyond 400-500GB).
Cheers, -J
Re:so... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree in general, because I'm in the same situation, being "Administrator of Computer Stuff". But come on, folks. Being an expert in mysql is one thing, but understanding how to write a shell script or use a simple command-line utility like mysqldump is pretty basic stuff that even "master of none" types like me are comfortable with.
There is a lot of reflexive elitism and egotism among techies, but if someone doesn't have a foundation of basic "linux literacy", telling them not to meddle with important systems is often warranted. I think people who consider themselves computer-savvy can sometimes get defensive when their knowledge about a particular topic is shown to be lacking because they feel it's a reflection on their overall "geek cred". So they point out all the other technologies they're competent in as though that somehow mitigates their lack of knowledge in this one. This, too, is a kind of "macho geek attitude", in that people will refuse to admit that they're n00bs and need to spend a lot of time learning before they can use a new technology.
When I come up against something I don't know how to do well, I spend my energy trying to learn how to do it better, not vehemently asserting why I don't need to.