8 Reasons Not To Use MySQL (And 5 To Adopt It) 288
Esther Schindler writes "Database decisions are never easy, even — or maybe especially — when one choice is extremely popular. To highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the open-source MySQL DBMS, CIO.com asked two open-source experts to enumerate the reasons to choose MySQL and to pick something else. Tina Gasperson takes the 5 reasons to use MySQL side, and Brent Toderash discusses 8 reasons not to. Note that this isn't an 'open source vs proprietary databases' comparison; it's about MySQL's suitability in enterprise situations."
Ready...Set... (Score:5, Funny)
NOW
Seriously, the articles do nothing more than point out the *best places* MySQL may or may not work, not that it is better than anything.
One size yet again does not fit all.
Hmmm..where's my Model204 [cca-int.com] manuals...?
Re:Ready...Set... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MySQL the db for people who don't understand db (Score:2)
Right, so in one sentence you talk about how the people you work with mock MySQL for being for the ignorant. However
Re: (Score:2)
e
Re:MySQL the db for people who don't understand db (Score:4, Informative)
With a traditional RDBMS, you define your data essentially using a pseudo-mathematic model, assign data constraints and triggers to ensure that the model is not violated, and add views to provide handy ways or putting the data together. You may optionally add stored procedures as a functional interface to that model.
Until 5.0, MySQL didn't even try to be this sort of database. Even in 5.0, you only get real data constraints, triggers, etc. on some types of tables, and strict mode (which does actual data type checking) can be turned off by the application. MySQL still does not compare well to traditional RDBMS's in their home turf (though PostgreSQL, Ingres II, and to a lesser extent Firebird do compare reasonably well-- Firebird to a lesser extent just becuase of some interesting cases involving NULL's).
In fact, MySQL is almost, though not entirely unlike Codd's idea of an RDBMS. MySQL is not something to consider for your RDBMS. Period. End of story. It is not worth it.
However, if what you want is a simple data storage engine for your one app with an SQL interface and many of the features from real RDBMS's, MySQL is not bad. It is a remarkably flexible software development tool with many very useful. It just is not a substitute for a real RDBMS (where, for example, the server must authoritatively and robustly provide data sanity checks).
Re:MySQL the db for people who don't understand db (Score:4, Insightful)
Oracle on the other case, seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what a database is supposed to do - it's encouraging you to push more and more of the application layer into the database (first plsql, and now Java at the database layer?).
I just want to create tables, select, insert or update data. Not much else. That's what Codd truly intended. Codd would roll over in his grave if he saw the bloated mess that Oracle is today. And you can design a horrible denormalized schema in Oracle just as much as MySQL - neither force any form of normalization at the RBDMS level. (Some applications merit denormalization)
Not to even mention the absolute shameful way Oracle considers, manages and patches security issues.
MySQL is a simple, free relational cruncher. I can't believe a true finance architect considers Oracle more robust that MySQL, especially when its comes to security.
The 8 reasons not to use mysql (Score:5, Informative)
2. MySQL Doesn't Use the GPL
3. Integration With an Existing Environment
4. Product Maturity
5. Feature Set Maturity
6. Availability of Certification
7. Corporate Considerations
8. Perception of Scalability
They all have *some* merit, but all are very dependent on your situation. 1 and 2 seem to cancel each other out, as in if #1 is an issue for you, #2 probably wouldn't be. #3 is sort of weak, arguing that if you already have many other databases, adding yet another different system is detrimental. That's not an argument against MySQL, but against disparate systems altogether. The rest of the issues are matters of degree. "While MySQL does have a certification training program, its training availability is not nearly as widespread as for, say, Oracle or MS-SQL Server." True, but if you're comfortable with the level of quality of certified MySQL people, then go forward. It'll contribute to the general upward spiral of adoption, hiring, certification and so on. MySQL is going to keep growing, it's just a matter of how quickly and in what directions.
P.S. Printable version here -> http://www.cio.com/article/print/113111 [cio.com]
Re:The 8 reasons not to use mysql (Score:5, Informative)
Are those supposed to e reasons? How about
Only 7, but all of those are real real complaints :)
That's not the target audience (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's not the target audience (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are in any position where you are choosing between databases, you have three cases:
Sorry about the M.P. reference there :o)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
5. You have delegated the decision to a well-funded, trusted team of veteran IT decision makers.
Businesses live and die by information, so the severity of your list of relatively insignificant defects rather depends on the criticality of the data in question. When lives are at stake (economically, physically or medically), when every hour of system downtime costs your operation tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, decisions are based on higher level concerns. The integrity of the da
Re:The 8 reasons not to use mysql (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I almost included that one, but they have actually fixed that 5.02. You can still specify ALLOW_INVALID_DATES as an sqlmode for that nostalgic feeling, though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does MySQL still use a rule-based planner?
Without having an effective cost-based planner (like PostgreSQL) the performance for non-trivial (from a planning perspective) queries will never be competitive.
If using a rule-based planner, how does MySQL know when to use a hash aggregate versus a sort + group aggregate? How does it determine join order without keeping statistics about the nature of the data stored in the tables? How does it know whether to hash join vs. merge join? What happens when t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Compared to PostgreSQL's optimizer, which tried very very hard to avoid nested loop joins, and can handle medium sized queries (upto around 16-table joins) with relative ease, its a real burden to port apps to work with mysql.
Re: (Score:2)
I could be mistaken, but I thought Connector/J 5.0 supported retrieving BLOBs as streams if you used the MySQL specific API and not just generic JDBC.
Re: (Score:2)
What the other poster meant, is let say I have a 1 gigabytes AVI file in a row, its possible (at least with other DBMS) to open that particular -field- as if it was a file on the file system, and to strea
Re:The 8 reasons not to use mysql (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The 8 reasons not to use mysql (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is so horrid it should be forbidden and deemed illegal in any sane jurisdiction.
Re:The 8 reasons not to use mysql (Score:4, Insightful)
It's this kind of thing that makes me still suspicious of MySQL. I hope that for the next release - 6.0 or whatever it is - they can make a clean break with historical stupidity, and release a DBMS that gives safe, ANSI-compliant behaviour out of the box. However, there's nothing wrong with letting the sysadmin deliberately loosen some of the transactional constraints in cases where ultra high speed is important, although note that for all its supposed emphasis on speed over correctness, MySQL is slower than Postgres [blogspot.com].
Re:The 8 reasons not to use mysql (Score:4, Informative)
Your suspicions are correct generally. However, your hopes may have to live a little longer because if the next version of MySQL is based on anything that they have out today you may be in for a disappointment. Here are my real reasons not to use MySQL:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how does its procedural code, trigger capability, and user defined functions compare to Oracle?
Is it possible to port between them without jumping through too many hoops?
Does MySQL support partitioning?
How about performance with large dbs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you right now, SSIS is fantastic for what we want to do, especially integrating with t
Re: (Score:2)
In this day and age, the data engine itself is just one part of the equation.
Re: (Score:2)
Horribly written article (Score:3, Insightful)
It is painfully obvious from the article that this writer was or is a consultant. All of the reasons not to use MySQL are PHB reasons. Not one is based on actual abilities or inabilities of MySQL. He seems to be intent on agreeing with a position that he doesn't understand or didn't want to take. "...I'd be hard-pressed to tell a conservative IT manager making a platform decision for a mission-critical application based on this factor that he's doing the wrong thing." Yes, it does sound like he would be har
Looking at the 8 reasons not to use MySQL... (Score:5, Funny)
close(rantPage);
System.out.println("Nothing here to see. Please, move along...");
How can the BSD be "too open"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can the BSD be "too open"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can the BSD be "too open"? (Score:4, Insightful)
So we're going to have to trust the software company that won't show us their code, but will show us their books instead of the company that will show us the code, but not the books?!?
The 8 reasons are completely bunk, I thought I might actually learn something reading that article as we are about to increase our MySQL presence here, but that was a complete was of time.
-Rick
Re:How can the BSD be "too open"? (Score:5, Insightful)
In business, this often makes some sense. The purchaser doesn't want to see and maintain the code, that's not their core competency. They want to be assured that, however, the vendor they get support from will be around to provide support in the future. So they are more concerned with the financials than the code.
Its just outsourcing in its original sense (before what used to be either "overseas outsourcing" or "offshoring" became the dominant definition): focus your company on its primary mission, and contract out for everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Germany there are several supermarkets completely out of public trade. And they are doing very well inde
Re: (Score:2)
Some of his statements seemed to be about inclusion of the database in another product...
With the SCO v. Novell lawsuit on the front page, it makes me wonder if this is the underdeveloped idea he was getting at.
-Nev
Even so it doesn't make sense on its face (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't understand licensing. I've run into the same kind of thing with public domain software. Couldn't plug it in because they didn't understand that you didn't have to pay (or worry about legal issues with) public domain software, but were concerned support might not be there. Well - we had the source, but couldn't integrate it. So it the feature it would have sup
Re: (Score:2)
My company has a policy rejecting the application or use of any GPL or F/OSS software.
I'm not kidding...
Additional reason (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thats just an example, and while thats Microsoft, I'm sure there are plenty of non-Microsoft equ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I know he wasn't talking about weather or not its integrated. The thing is, he was saying how a relational database won't be on par for performance in datawarehousing/BI environments. That is correct, except when you install SQL Server, you get more than one "engine". The main one that everyone thinks about is a relational database. Analysis Services is NOT a relational database. It is an OLAP cu
Re: (Score:2)
Products like Hyperion Essbase have made this argument pretty much obsolete.
hmmm, very incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
> due to poor query performance but good for data entry due to high transactional performance
Your information is incorrect:
1. relational databases have been used for warehousing and reporting (data marts) for 15 years - and are used for more than any other solution for this purpose. Ok, sure you've got a lot of OLAP out there, but there's probably almost as much Relational OLAP (ROLAP) via Microstrategy, etc as there is true OLAP.
2. Take db2 for example, it:
- support three different forms of range partitioning (union-all views, multi-dimensional clustering, and range partitioning)
- supports hash-partitioning of the data across many servers - think "beowulf cluster"
- given the two above you can spread your data across 100 4-way servers, each with fibre access to a heavily-cashed SAN.
- Now when you issue a query db2 will spin up all 100 servers - each hitting its own local piece of the data (not 100 copies of the whole data, but each server with 1% of the whole).
- Because it also supports range partitioning each server is probably only going to scan 10% of the total data in a typical query.
- Because it support query parallelism it'll split each query on each node into four separate pieces (getting near-linear performance speedups) - now you've got 400 cpus working.
- Because its optimizer is about the best one on the market - it isn't going to auger itself into the ground on your 100 line sql query.
- That should allow you to crunch down a billion rows to your 24 row output in couple of seconds at most.
- Of course, it's also smart enough to rewrite your query to automatically hit any summary table that could speed the query up. So, it may only have to scan 2400 rows - and may return the results in 0.001 seconds.
3. The point is that warehousing, reporting and analytics work very well in a relational environment. But you need to pick your products well. If you want to handle terabytes of data you can put it in MySQL, SQLite, MS Access, Foxpro, etc - if you really had to. But, life will be *far* easier if you put it into a product that can handle the volumes much better.
Reasons not to use MySQL? These are stupid reasons (Score:5, Informative)
--Innodb scaling across multiple processors (MySQL bug ID 15815, still not completely fixed)
--Limit of 1024 current transactions ( MySQL bug 26590)
--Terrible performace when running MySQL Cluster
--Single threaded mysqldump exporting and importing (recently fixed in 5.1)
--Single threaded replication (making many changes? Don't count on it if you're running replication)
--Poor handling of subselects
--ineffecient ORDER by and GROUP BY
--Poor quality filesort algortythm (want to see your $20,000 dollar database server die?)
--better performance in 4.1.x
Let's also mention that 5.1 has been out in beta for years now. When is it ever going to ship? MySQL now is proclaiming fixes in 5.2, and 5.1 isn't even on the board to ship yet.
With all that, and more, I'm surprised this author could only come up with "it isn't made by Oracle" and "product mateurity."
*disclosure -- yes, I play with MySQL databases all day long in large high use production environments. MySQL is great for small systems, but there -are- some problems when running on large enterprise grade systems. It'll get there
Re:Reasons not to use MySQL? These are stupid reas (Score:4, Insightful)
The audience for both articles are for IT (upper)mangers. Most of your argument above would be better off for the technical lead whose doing the report for his immediate manager (maybe technical) who'll then give a report to the CIO or even to a manger below him that would say:
MySQL (GOOD)
Oracle (GOOD but expensive)
Excel (BAD)
Not that those managers inherently stupid (hope not), it's just that their more concerned with the bigger picture and the resultant budget.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You mention Excel jokingly, but I know some companies which maintain large databases worth of information inside of
Re: (Score:3)
And PHBs can spend budget on paid support.
Re:Reasons not to use MySQL? These are stupid reas (Score:5, Insightful)
Oracle run by a good DBA is fast fast fast. I don't have benchmarks for you. But I have personally migrated an application from MSSQL 2000 to Oracle 9i. I have more experience with MSSQL than I do Oracle (and so you could rightly infer that at first, my coding practice was optimized toward MSSQL which is in many cases the opposite of how you code for Oracle), and yet my application runs much, much faster on Oracle. I chalk it up, in part, to the efficiency of the indexing. The b-tree indexes in Oracle are just awesome. And now that I actually understand how to really tune a query in Oracle like I do in MSSQL, I have to say that Oracle provides better tools to enable you to tune. The explain plan alone, when you really understand it, is hands down better than, say set statistics io on and set statistics time on in MSSQL. And that's not even getting into TKPROF.
Maybe your real world experience says the opposite of what I just said, but in the corporate environment (like at work) I wouldn't even think of using anything other than Oracle, not out of prejudice, but based on years of experience. I'd like to try MSSQL 2005, though. Always willing to give them another shot.
But I have also used Oracle DBs admined at let's just say, a less-than-competent level, and it's quite horrid. Oracle has to be done well, and paying a real DBA is costly. Enter MySQL.
Re:Reasons not to use MySQL? These are stupid reas (Score:2, Funny)
What does Al Gore have to do with this?
Re:Reasons not to use MySQL? These are stupid reas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're right on most everything else you said, but comparing web based social networking sites (which have incredible a
Okay, 5-1/2 reasons not to use MySQL. (Score:2)
Two of them are "Product Maturity".
And one is "Someone might think it's not scaleable". Possibly valid. Probably not.
What a fascinating argument. (Score:2)
And that's before you get into "which MySQL are we talking about anyway" debates. There are multiple configurations for how the tables are stored, for example. Then there's
RIDICULOUS! (Score:2)
No seriously, I don't get it. Why is being under the GPL a bad thing?
lame "bias" argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Due to tue relative low incidents of formally trained Oracle DBA's being mauled by Tigers, you could also infer that formal Oracle DBA training will also protect you from Tiger attacks. (To re-use & mash up that old cliche).
What a lame argument. Of course there may be some bias, but the fact is that: Oracle kicks every other RDBMS at pretty much everything: Stability, speed (optimizations up the wazoo), features, consistency.
To be able to manage these systems efficiently & keep a "Q9" system up & running, the formal training certainly does help but I would argue is not required as the documentation is pretty damn helpful unless you get one of those wonderful ORA-600 errors (is that the magic "WTF" Oracle error? I can't recall).
Sure - the woo of mega bux will entice many into Oracle DBA training but the weaker resources fall off quickly. You can't fake it when your production system is down.
IANAODBA
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Last time I checked, DB2 was more scalable than Oracle (less performance hit as you stuffed the database) and both Sybase and SQL Server were faster.
Re:lame "bias" argument (Score:4, Informative)
That depends entirely on the platforms you happen to run them. DB2 on NT (what used to be called "UDB") is a joke; DB2 on OS/390 is pretty much what defines a "big-iron" database. Oracle on NT is nowhere near as good as it is on Solaris. But Sybase on NT is actually quite good - almost as good as SQL Server on the same hardware. Sybase 12.x on HP-UX is also quite good.
Re: (Score:2)
In datawarehouse environments & app environments I've always seen more Oracle than SQL server. For speed/stability I've always had more success with Oracle but have no qualms with SQL Server - it is mighty fast and easy to use(ducks & dodges eggs & rotten tomatos) but I've queried sql server to a crawl more often than I ever have an Oracle db.
We have an instance of Sybase where I'm at now but haven't given
Re: (Score:2)
And price.
MySQL makes sense... sometimes (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny enough, if everyone used the right DB for them, the number
#2 is not an issue with enterprise applications (Score:3, Informative)
This article comes from CIO website so I think that it if fair to say that they are most interested in applications for the enterprise. Enterprise applications don't bundle the database. They may require a certain database vendor product/version or a small set of database vendors but they don't bundle the database with the application. This is true whether or not you use SQL Server, DB2, Oracle, MySQL, or PostgreSQL.
IANAL, but IMHO there is no legal restriction to selling a commercial, closed source application that requires MySQL as long as you don't include the MySQL application with it. This isn't a problem for enterprise applications because businesses that need such applications already have sufficient IT experience to run the vendor specific database that they are going to accept. If a company doesn't have sufficient IT experience to do this then they are going to have to go the SaaS route. Their are not going to be able to manage the application even if it did come bundled with a vendor specific database product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes down to it, most enterprise apps would not see a significant performance shift in either direction based on platform and in those situations it is better to go with the database vendor with which your staff has the most experience. Enterprise app
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the MySQL client library is as GPL as the server. There are exceptions for PHP (introduced when the GPL license change prompted PHP to move towards sqlite as their by-default database choice) but if you're writing an application in C++ and linking against the MySQL client libraries, you need to either use an ancient pre-GPL
Invalid use of the GPL? (Score:2, Insightful)
The link I have there for the MySQL internals doc seems to be invalid... It has moved to here: http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Internals_Client Server_Protocol#Licensing_Notice [mysql.com]
Here is a quote:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Invalid use of the GPL? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fiction: the protocol is GPLed. Frankly, that's just dumb; the GPL's scope doesn't include protocols.
Fact: the MySQL client libraries are GPLed. If you use the official MySQL libraries and wish to distribute your program, your choices are to buy a commercial license or release your code under the GPL. I am unaware of any non-GPL client libraries for MySQL, although I've never had a reason to actually look for them.
Basically, the author was mostly right, even if for the wrong reasons.
Supports Cutting Edge Technology (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got the php_mysql.so library, but I can't seem to find the MySQL library in my Ajax installation... Oh wait, ajax isn't a programming language. I'm sorry little things like that really get under my skin (e.g calling the CPU "the hard drive", "I've got the Internet on my computer", calling excel spreadsheets databases). In case the author of the article didn't know, postgreSQL also comes prepared to support Ruby, and PHP.
I also didn't see where they listed phpmyadmin as a reason to use MySQL. Seems like they always use that as one of the reasons.
I tried to pay attention. I really did. (Score:2, Interesting)
* Google.
* Yahoo.
* Digg**.
** Yeh, I'm the Digg DBA.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
content-free article (Score:2)
Scaling, robustness, etcetera. (Score:5, Informative)
So I took the extra ten minutes, and I'm pretty happy.
Every large site I know of that uses MySQL has had scaling problems of one sort or another under load, usually to do with trying to handle multiple writes to the database. At least a few people have simply swapped in PostgreSQL and seen problems disappear instantly. One friend did performance testing, where what he found was that MySQL was faster for small sets of clients, but that it slowed down faster, and that for largish N, he couldn't get it complete the test on the available hardware, but PostgreSQL just ran.
Having set up both a few times now, and having debugged problems with both, there is simply no way I'd use MySQL given any choice at all. It runs, but it feels accreted rather than designed. I know, Cathedral and Bazaar and all that... But there are times when you really do want the feeling that someone considered something up front.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that with InnoDB too?
(My only showstopping problem with either one is that PostgreSQL had bad support for sorting on different character sets on a table basis. Didn't even sort on spaces for many collations, iirc. Don't know if I did something wrong or if it is better in the last version.)
Why Not Use MySQL (Score:2, Insightful)
Why NOT to use MySQL (Score:4, Informative)
Tina is dead bang on with the TCO commnet; We pay more for Oracle support than we pay two Certified DBA's.
Brent's comment about "ignorance" of workers not knowing a company has a site license for propertiery systems is not a technology fault, but a management fault. That cannot be properly consider a fault of the technology.
Seems to me to be a send up. A trial ballon to support a future brochure slick about why paying $$$ for an RDBMS makes sense and why something "Free" isn't. We all know that using open source isn't free unless you have unlimited staff time and don't count system administration costs against a particular project. Open Source CAN cost a lot more than a closed source system, but it's not something I've seen. I'm sure there are examples, I just don't know of any.
There are also times when open source doesn't make sense. Like in situations of unlimited libility in case of failure. Take a nuke reactor. Say you use open source products to control that reactor, and it melts down because a pump failed to start, a valve was incorrectly closed, and humans didn't follow proceedures. Automatically, it's the fault of the open source product, obviously, because you were too cheap to go buy "good" software.
Until the human race as a whole can value a gift freely given by a stranger, it won't grow much past it's current point.
MySQL Gotchas (Score:3, Informative)
http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html [sql-info.de]
Some of my favorite are things where MyQL accepts values it shouldn't and it doesn't throw an error. For example you can insert a 0 into a date field, 30000000000 into an in column (it will just ignore the higher order bits.
MySQL is OK for quick and dirty, but it will always be dirty. If you want MySQL to be decent:
1) Set it up with InnoDB and make that the default table type. MyISAM should only be used for data warehouse tpye applications where you are doing a lot of IO and its OK for the DB to be down for hours while you recover your corrupted MyISAM tables.
2) Set the strict sql mode in the my.cnf. I don't remember exactly what the parameter name is, but you want MyQL to throw an error if you throw stupid values at it. Otherwise it will accept wacky values and you'll end up debugging it later.
3) Set the default character set to UTF-8 if you can. This can be a bear but its worth it to be able to handle foreign characters.
4) Avoid the fancy "features" if you can. The old features still have unresolved bugs and it isn't going to get any better with more and more storage engines going in.
5) Monitor the performance constantly and be prepared to partition your data. Scale out isn't always as easy as it sounds.
Complete crap (Score:2)
well then (Score:3, Funny)
Re:oooo, goody (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, boo-hoo, dual-license bad!
The rest of the article is equally stupid. For example, "If you already own proprietary licenses ..." has NOTHING to do with whether Mysql is a good fit or not. Next it will be "I hae Pepsi in the fridge; I really want a glass of free cold water or a bottle of Coke right now, but I'll buy some more Pepsi instead seeing as I've already standardized on it".
Re:oooo, goody (Score:4, Insightful)
It boils down to corporate culture.
Re:oooo, goody (Score:5, Insightful)
My comment to the article was:
First, I do not recommend MySQL frequently and I figured I would explain why. Although I have no formal training in database design I consider myself more educated in these matters than the average developer.
The basic issue is that, until recently, MySQL has avoided being a classical RDBMS. Instead, it has been developed as a quick and dirty data storage system with an SQL interface. While this is great for some kinds of applications (light-weight web content systems), it breaks down quickly when you need to have many different applications (some commerical, some inhouse) running against the same database. Even MySQL 5 does not get away from this concern entirely (even though the features now exist, enforcing them by the RDBMS is still problematic).
Basically-- if you want a rapid development storage device with an SQL interface for a single application, there is no reason not to use MySQL (aside from the standard Gotchas). If, however, you want to have a more intelligent database which mathematically represents your data as well as possible, and displays these properly to many different client apps, it is still not adequate. Note that the former case has a nasty habit of evolving into the latter case.
Re:It gets worse... (Score:2)
Re:It gets worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:oooo, goody (Score:5, Funny)
Oh goody! I'll help get things going:
Happy Memorial Day!
Re:oooo, goody (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh, oh. The pro mysql guy can't count. (Score:5, Funny)
The anti-MySQL guy is Canadian, though, so he probably doesn't pee standing up either. Lots of beer -> floor -> bladder evacuation. I kid, I kid...
Re:Uh, oh. The pro mysql guy can't count. (Score:5, Funny)
Just keepin' it real. Gotta love the internet.
Re:Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
unless you include green apples in that debate, those ones can be pretty effin random. i don't like those ones much.
hmm... i need to do some more considering on this debate.
come to think of it, christmas oranges rock the house... so i guess if your comparing christmas oranges to green apples, then y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is, unless you WANT us to go to that add-infested parked domain.