Hot Comments
- Re:3d Realms Forums (5 points, Informative) by VGPowerlord on Friday September 03, @01:50PM attached to Duke Nukem Forever Back In Development
- In other Hell News a cold front may be moving in.. (5 points, Funny) by meerling on Friday September 03, @01:40PM attached to Duke Nukem Forever Back In Development
- If they dropped the word Back (5 points, Funny) by jfinke on Friday September 03, @01:42PM attached to Duke Nukem Forever Back In Development
- Avatar (5 points, Insightful) by Joce640k on Friday September 03, @10:07AM attached to Hurt Locker File-Sharing Subpoenas Begin
- Where? Fuck everything! (5 points, Funny) by oldhack on Friday September 03, @03:39PM attached to Where Does Dell Go After Losing 3Par?
7907320
story
Comments: 95 + - Developers: First MySQL 5.5 Beta Released on Friday December 18 2009, @01:29PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdatabases.gif); width:108px; height:63px;
database
joabj writes "While MySQL is the subject of much high-profile wrangling between the EU and Oracle (and the MySQL creator himself), the MySQL developers have been quietly moving the widely-used database software forward. The new beta version of MySQL, the first publicly available, features such improvements as near-asynchronous replication and more options for partitioning. A new release model has been enacted as well, bequeathing this version the title of 'MySQL Server 5.5.0-m2.' Downloads here."
Related Stories
Aliquid melius quam pessimum optimum non est.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Editor Fail (Score:2, Informative)
Downloads are not here. Might try actually putting a full URL in there instead of MySQLServer5.5.0-m2
Re: (Score:2)
It's kdawson. 5 time winner of the "Worst Slashdot Editor of All Time" award.
Re: (Score:3)
5 times today ... or possibly 6. depends how many articles he posts.
semi-synchronous replication (Score:2, Informative)
The Summary should have mentioned this (Score:3)
FTA:
MySQL 5.5 will also support the ANSI/ISO SQL standard method of programmatically returning errors inside SQL procedures, called Signal/Resignal, which some users have called for.
This was never really an issue, because MySQL always had it's way of preforming whatever you needed it to do, but I used it in Oracle and it really does make a difference. Here's a link that will show you a bit of what it does, for those who don't know.
All in all, I'm glad things are moving forward. Still not the forerunner but still in the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. I forgot to provide that link [oracle-base.com] I had.
Have they fixed NDBCLUSTER yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
The last two times I tested it for a true shared-nothing HA cluster, NDBCLUSTER failed miserably without a lot of tweaking. The optimizer was buggy to the point of being broken. And basically the response I got from MySQL AB at the time was, "If you want to use NDBCLUSTER, you'd better get the Enterprise Support Package". After pricing out what it would cost in support from MySQL AB AND the cost of having to go through and rewrite a bunch of our code to optimize it, it was cheaper to buy DB2.
Company I work for now uses PostgreSQL for main product lines. But two of their package are third party and use MySQL including their billing system. It works, but as it stands right now, neither of those systems are being taxed on a Dual-Quad Core DB server with 12GB RAM. In fact, it barely runs at 5% of resource utilization. We still use MySQL for one of our website's CMS. And it does the job well.
MySQL works well up until you need more than one box. Replication can work in some circumstances, but as a HA solution, it looses any advantages it had in terms of cost vs. extremely proven and reliable systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your response!
Re: (Score:2)
You generally would do the failover using another product like heartbeat, to promote a slave or whatever else needs to be done during failover. The unix way is each app does one thing and is good at it.
Re: (Score:2)
My current pr
Re: (Score:2)
How about using DRBD for Mysql High Availability clustering [mysql.com] instead of NDBCLUSTER? In a nutshell, one DB instance is used to handle writes and this is synchronously replicated to a Heartbeat cluster standby node using DRBD. Asynchronous replication to more DBs handle all the reads (with load balancing between them). Use Sharding to scale out when you need more capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another link [mysql.com] with a better explanation and a nice pretty picture :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice to see some honest feedback from someone who's obviously tried the product. Glad you like ALTER ONLINE -- I'll pass that along to the devs.
MySQL 5.1.41 mainline has just been merged into what will be the next set of MySQL Cluster releases, BTW.
True variable-width columns on disk, indexes on disk, and better join performance are high on our list of priorities. As well as a few other goodies that'll be coming out early next year, but I can't talk about those just yet. :)
Near-asynchronous? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. "Near-asynchronous" sounds like it's still synchronous.
You keep using that word... (Score:2)
Bequeath [answers.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:frist psotgres (Score:5, Insightful)
By that metric, MS Access wins every time...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:frist psotgres (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't think of many criteria in which PostgreSQL is lacking compared to MySQL. In my experience, MySQL is "easier to use" only in that the default security configuration on some distribution packages is easier to understand.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
stop being a tool, it was obvious it was not his only criteria. And in any marketplace it is an important one that will gain more users.
Do I see netbsd high in the usage ranks?
Actually I didn't think it was obvious.
As I read it the first guy was just saying he preferred mysql to PostreSQL and that one of the deciding factors in that decision was ease of use.
The second guy as I read it was trying to discount the original argument by showing that ease of use should not be considered because that means Access would win which we consider absurd knowing many of the weaknesses with Access.
I don't think that pointing out that that is absurd reasoning is "being a tool" but I am
Re: (Score:2)
Out of the box replication in PostgresSQL was a bit lacking, last I checked. MySQL replication seems to work well for smaller scale projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, most desktop people who are just after ease of use end up using Excel :)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true; I actually thought about saying Excel instead of Access. I chose Access because it actually is a relational database.
When used with SharePoint, Access 2007/2010 is easier - SharePoint will automatically create an Access database using SharePoint lists/libraries as tables, and Access will synchronize the content. Setting up a custom SharePoint list (or customizing an existing one) isn't too difficult - certainly
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, transactions. Those are a real bitch, aren't they? I mean, they get in the way all of the time, protecting your data's integrity. We can't fucking have atomicity. No fucking way. PostgreSQL totally lacks the random and unexpected data corruption that makes MySQL great.
And foreign key constraints! Stupid little motherfuckers, preventing arbitrary data entry and orphan records. In my MySQL database, I want to insert any sort of crap I feel like, even if it violates all sorts of constraints.
The worst, th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What ease of use issues? That hasn't been an issue in years. PostgreSQL is well supported even on Windows these days.
For the vast majority of users, PostgreSQL scales better, has far more features, supports far more PLs, is technically more advanced, has a vastly superior query optimizer, is more stable, is well supported, and doesn't have the politics surrounding it like MySQL does. Even better, it teaches proper ANSI SQL which carries over to any number of other engines, excepting MySQL.
Given there are no
Re: (Score:2)
Because most web publishers are deployers, rather than developers, of web software. The overwhelming majority of this software is written in PHP and assumes the presence of MySQL. Even those packages that support other databases often treat them as second-class citizens; they tend to be much less developed and tested.
I am a sane person, and I care more about using the database that'll work best with the apps I want to use (such as phpBB), than I do about promoting tech for its own sake.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but I find 'Psotgres' to be far lacking compared to mysql.
Factually, its just you. The fact is, MySQL is horribly lacking compared to PostgreSQL. MySQL is constantly chasing PostgreSQL's feature set. That's the facts. No trolling required.
Why do you think so many PostgreSQL supports are so rabid about how inferior MySQL is in just about every metric that matters for a RDBMS? Its like constantly watching Pinto [wikipedia.org] owners rave about how great their car is when for the same money they could have gotten just about anything else and been better off, not to mention safer.
and firebird! (Score:4, Interesting)
Just to wedge this in: Firebird users often feel the same way. Firebird 2.5 is now available as an official release candidate.
Yes, the database engine. Not the browser. *sigh*
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. While I've never used Firebird, I've never once heard a bad thing about.
I share your pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious: what kind of scaling / replication problem did you have?
Scaling: lots of connections, lots of tables, lots of requests, lots of data, ... ?
Replication: for sharding, for master / slave, for multi-site, for backups (incremental? hot?), ... ?
I ask because I haven't personally profiled FB vs. PG on any of those metrics, and they get enough less market share than other products to make finding such comparisons difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, tears in eyes, coffee out of nose, sides aching, the whole works.
Read like a helpful tip from the pages of Viz. You're not Geordie by any chance are you ?
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: when someone has a UID that's half yours and you suspect someone is a cunt, it's probably you. Especially if you're German.
What if they simply bought their UID [slashdot.org]
Who would the cunt be then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're also still missing 99% of the subquery optimizations they had in the 6.0 Alpha codebase and 99% of the other improvements. When they went sun they started worrying too much about BC and improvements slowed down substantially. In my opinion, if you want less buggy software on a faster release model, you need to not give priority to BC. But then you lose the support contracts, which is all sun cares about.
Troll, I know, but wrong decade. (Score:3, Informative)
So depending on your use case, you can still make fun of it for not sup
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Any DB engine can do that. Just do a minimal install, remove all constraints and stop transaction logging. You'll be amazed how fast a DB engine can run.
BTW, *eventual* consistency is an oxymoron. Once it's gone it is gone. Unless you do a total wipe of all the tables and then reload them from the original data sources. Once a DB is corrupted, good luck cleaning it up. As many victims of identity theft have learned.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be an oxymoron in the RDBMS world. In the distributed world, it's par for the course - in fact, it has its own letter in CAP.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly! Especially since MySQL is already well known for both data loss and corruption in the name of performance. Made all the more embarrassing is that PostgreSQL consistently either meets or beats MySQL in performance and leaves it far behind in scalability. In short, PostgreSQL is literally the poster boy proving such an errant trend is bad for everyone.
At the end of the day, that's just MySQL marketing trying to explain why MySQL is inferior to PostgreSQL and other commercial offers. After all, bringi
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since MySQL is already well known for both data loss and corruption in the name of performance. Made all the more embarrassing is that PostgreSQL consistently either meets or beats MySQL in performance and leaves it far behind in scalability.
We moved our DB from MySQL to PG about a year ago and experienced significant performance improvements over both InnoDB and MyISAM. Pretty interesting when you consider that PG is also more secure that MySQL.
My guess is that once PG reaches critical mass as an Open Source DB name, people will be moving away from MySQL in groves.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're dealing with real money, You *NEED* them. If you're dealing with tweets, you can't afford them.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't dumb, just expensive. If they cost more than their worth, you don't need them.
True, but PostgreSQL is faster and more secure. Why not have both if you can?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I moved our application of now over 1 millions lines from MySQL to Postgres with only a few minor changes and no stored procedures.
I'm not sure what you mean by "I can write SQL in a way that upgrades toward a situation instead of failing when the incorrect old situation was there." Can you elaborate?
In my experience, MySQL doesn't offer any more flexibility on the whole than Postgresql. Some stuff is better with MySQL, like replication, whereas other stuff is better with Postgres (performance of joins, var
Re: (Score:2)
It has working async (log shipping isn't synchronous) but it has lots of bugs that can jump up and bite you in the ass that haven't been fixed yet. Search the MySQL bug database for examples. It still requires you to stop your whole cluster and replicate the master to the slave to work. For large datasets this is unworkable if you need continuous uptime.
It's pretty good, and super easy to setup, but it's not perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Will they label it with number 6 when it finally come out of beta closet?
Version 6 is the release that will have the Falcon Engine which is supposed to come closer to PostgreSQL performance.
Re: (Score:2)
select * from features where build = 'current' and product = 'postgresql'
No, that's unfair - Surely you meant:
SELECT * FROM features WHERE build = (currentver -3) AND product = 'postgresql'