MySQL 5.0.3-beta Released 56
Zontar The Mindless writes "MySQL Community Edition 5.0.3-beta has been released. This version has support for Stored Procedures, Triggers, Views and many other features, including a number of security enhancements and stability fixes. See the changelog for a complete listing of new features and bugfixes. MySQL 5.0.3-beta is now available in source and binary form for Linux, Solaris, MacOS X, FreeBSD, Windows, and other platforms from dev.mysql.com/downloads/ and mirror sites. RPMs for Red Hat/Fedora and SUSE Linux are also now available for the first time in the 5.0 series. This is the first Beta release in the 5.0 series, in preparation for a MySQL 5.0 production release later this year."
But, but, but... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:But, but, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
MySQL 5 is a HUGE leap forward for MySQL and most of the points will probably become moot. Let's just hope they fix the default-value fiasco also...
When MySQL 5 is released PostgreSQL will get some more Open Source competition and that is a good thing.
Re:But, but, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
MySQL 5 is a HUGE leap forward for MySQL and most of the points will probably become moot. Let's just hope they fix the default-value fiasco also...
Are they planning on fixing the artistic license that MySQL routinely takes with the data thrown at it? I'm talking about autotruncation, auto "converting" strings to numbers, NULL and 0 being the same thing... Until MySQL takes data consistency or at least validation seriously it will never make it in this shop.
When MySQL 5 is released PostgreSQL will
Good job (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But, but, but... (Score:2)
Re:But, but, but... (Score:2)
http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.ht
Which one would you rather use?
The MySQL team thinks the PostgreSQL team... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The MySQL team thinks the PostgreSQL team... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you said 4, you've done it the MySQL way. As quickly as possible with no regard to giving the correct answer.
Anybody can give the wrong answer quickly. I used to be a MySQL fanboy, then I started hitting the various "Gotchas" that it has where answers didn't come out correctly.
The amount of time cleaning up wasn't worth it. If 95% of their warnings were errors, I probably wouldn't have changed to PostgreSQL.
Things like the below make me nervous:
InnoDB: Com
What's the trick? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Intentionally mangled output due to the $%#& lameness filter.)
I'm not disuputing you, and I can't stand lots of mysql's screwy behaviours (I'm a rather big Postgres booster, actually). I'm just wondering how to reproduce it.
-abulafia, currently supporting Postgresql, Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase and Mysql.
Re:What's the trick? (Score:2)
OK. (Score:2)
a really basic question... (Score:2)
is MYSQL sufficiently standard in its server interfaces to support the JDBC pieces in my servlets? I have never used anything but Oracle [they owned my employer...its a habit of theirs] nor ever met a programmer who was allowed to talk about it.
Re:a really basic question... (Score:2)
Uh, I'm going to interpret that as "does MySQL have JDBC compliant drivers?" The answer is "sure, has been for years." Be sure to download [mysql.com] the right version for you.
Re:a really basic question... (Score:1)
The real question (Score:5, Interesting)
MySQL has Fulltext search and relational contraints, but not both at the same time becuase of the different table types.
Unless the MySQL team can get all these features together in MyISAM, don't expect a big uptake.
Re:The real question (Score:3, Informative)
> these features supported under one table type?
The use of stored routines, views, or triggers is not restricted to any one storage engine.
Re:The real question (Score:2)
Re:The real question (Score:2)
In any case, since the source is available, there's nothing preventing anyone from adding this capability to InnoDB, or adding FK and transaction support to MyISAM.
In fact MySQL is specifically architected to allow different storage engines to be used with the server. (This is how MySQL Cluster has been implemented, for example.) Here's an article talks about how to go about writing your own storage engine [mysql.com]. It's not as hard as y
Yes but... (Score:4, Informative)
On Licensing (Score:5, Informative)
Let me clarify the licensing.
First, if your application is under the GPL or another OSI compliant open source licence, you will not need a commercial licence for MySQL. MySQL AB has issued a "FLOSS Exception" which uniquely makes the GPL licence as used for MySQL compatible with OSI approved open source licences. See our website for more information.
Secondly, if you use GPL software in-house, i.e. you do not distribute, then the reciprocity requirement of the GPL does not kick in so you are free to use MySQL under GPL. (Some call the reciprocity requirement the "viral effect". I call it the reciprocity requirement, or simply the "blessing".)
The two scenarios above cover the vast majority of all cases.
If you distribute a commercially licensed application, then by the same logic that your application is commercially licensed, we think the database should be. This is the Quid pro Quo principle of MySQL AB and of a host of other open source companies.
I hope this info is useful!
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
Re:On Licensing (Score:1)
Maybe then the following statement should be removed from the MySQL website (http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/ope n source-license.html) - or are you allowing free use of MySQL with commercial apps, as long as they do not ship MySQL with the app?
"Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long as you never distribute the MySQL Software in any way, you are free to use it for powering your application, irrespective of whether your application is under GPL license or not."
Re:On Licensing (Score:2)
To USE it in a commercial website: no. The restrictions apply when you distribute the application itself (like selling the application to a client).
MySQL licence is cheap anyway compared to any proprietary alternative. Just add it to your client's bill in some way.
Re:On Licensing (Score:2, Insightful)
Where do I apply?
Re:On Licensing (Score:2)
Here's a good place to start [mysql.com].
"Reciprocity" in the GPL does not exist. (Score:2)
The so-called "reciprocity" requirement of the GNU GPL does not exist. There is no requirement for me to seek out MySQL AB so I can send them a copy of a distributed MySQL derivative. Under the GPL, I don't even have to notify you that this MySQL derivative exists nor that I have distributed it to others. The way you word things, it sounds like you believe that I have an obligation to share my changes upstream. I can find no language in the GPL v2 to support this.
Also, the GPL is a commercial [gnu.org] license.
Re:"Reciprocity" in the GPL does indeed exist. (Score:2)
Right, you don't have to send any code back specifically to the copyright holder (MySQL AB in this case).
What I mean by "reciprocity requirement" is section 2b of the GPL. This is what it says:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
The GPL does not require you to pay anyone, and it does not require you not to c
Reciprocity doesn't convey what you're saying. (Score:2)
Reciprocity is a great word (Score:2)
The logic for us is "We have opened up our software to the whole world by licensing it under the GPL. We hope you reciprocate by doing the same with your software."
Re:Yes but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Like, wow! Using a database that has foreign key and !sic! constrains you to actu
Re:Yes but... (Score:2)
MySQL has had foreign key support for years.
Re:updateable views? (Score:2)
> updateable views in a future version of MySQL. Is
> this in MySQL 5? Have they even been able to do it?
Yes, updateable views were implemented in MySQL 5.0.1 [mysql.com] (July '04).
Re:updateable views? (Score:3, Informative)
Using Rules/Triggers in PostgreSQL (which I guess is what you refer to with "do it yourself") to implement updatable views is actually much more powerful that "classical" updatable views, as it allows to make all kinds of views (even unions and intersections) updatable - as long as you can write a procedure that updates the involved base tables correctly for your application.
But, yes, MySQL implements updatable views in 5.0.x and
Comparison of MySQL 5 and PostgreSQL 8 (Score:1)
Re:Comparison of MySQL 5 and PostgreSQL 8 (Score:1, Informative)
compares MySQL, Postgresql, DB2, Oracle, and SQLServer [arvin.dk] against the SQL Standards.
Pretty much all the other comparison pages merely have checklists claiming that something is or isn't supported. This guy actually shows the exact difference between the SQL and the non-standard ways the different vendors address their holes in the standard.
Biggest Problem with MySQL (Score:1)
Great news for MySQL! (Score:3, Insightful)
<asbestos suit>
Those PostgreSQL must be quaking in their boots not that MySQL has reached feature parity with PostgreSQL 6.0. Now that they're only six or seven years behind PGSQL developers will have to keep an eye on them
</asbestos suit>
Anyways I think competition is a good thing, and it's good to see the market leader in the open source database realm become somewhat more industrial strength. I've been puzzled by how more robust, featureful alternatives like PostgreSQL and Firebird are overlooked in favour of MySQL, so at least if it continues to happen MySQL is starting to fit the bill better.
I know it sounds like a slight against MySQL, which really is the best choice in many situations since it is fast, has a smal footprint and is easy to set up, use and maintain. However, MySQL's suitability in web applications has made it so popular that it seems to have pushed alternatives to the sidelines even when they are the better choice. For example, I think I'd much rather set up an accounting system with a PGSQL backend over MySQL.
In any case, I encourage people to look at ALL the alternatives. PGSQL 8.0 is out and is very impressive. Also, devlopment of Firebird 2.0 is underway so expect rapid improvements as this major release gets closer to completion.
Coming off a project with a MS SQL Server 2000 backend I'd have to say the more alternatives the merrier. MSSQL2K is pretty stale and after workig with PGSQL for so long it makes MS SQL look completely brain dead in almost every way--particularly in the areas of concurrency and locking. It'll be interesting to see how Yukon stacks up, but at least MySQL and the others will provide some serious competition.
Oh, for fuck's sake. (Score:2)
Is this the same PostgreSQL v6 that you had to vacuum your fucking tables every fucking day? Oh, and did I mention that in PostgreSQL v6 the vacuum command required an exclusive lock on your fucking tables?
Yeah, pgsql v6 was really ready for primetime. Uh-huh. Great.
Bringing up pgsql v6 is a really bad idea. Conjures up way too many vile images.
Re:Oh, for fuck's sake. (Score:2)
in any case, I said feature parity, not performance parity. You're right, the table-locking vacuum was a pain in the ass--about as elegant as re-indexing dbase tables. But not ready for prime-time? I'd have to take exception. I first started using PGSQL in the 6.0.x days a
Why would I want a sense of humor? (Score:2)
And, no, I don't consider shit like this [postgresql.org] to be documentation.
why? (Score:1)
mysql's a good little toy database that's perfectly suited to mostly-read applications (e.g. many kinds of web sites). why throw that away to be a half-arsed imitation of a real db?
if you want a real db, use postgres or o