MySQL to Get Injection of Google Code

inkslinger77 writes to mention that MySQL has published their software roadmap out through 2009 and it includes an injection of code from Google. Google remains relatively secretive about how their systems work but they are one of the largest users of MySQL. Earlier this year Google signed a Contributor License Agreement which provides a framework for them to contribute code to MySQL. "The search company has done a lot of work customizing MySQL to meet its special needs, which include better database replication, and tools to monitor a high volume of database instances, Axmark said in an interview at MySQL's user conference in Paris. MySQL will include some of those capabilities in future versions of its database, probably in point upgrades to MySQL 6.0, which is scheduled for general availability in late 2008, Axmark said."

Hells yeah

[rsborg]

Eat that, Oracle.
Seriously the database layer is being commoditized, and MySQL and PostgreSQL are leading the way.

My only question, was Google required to disclose these changes, or are they just doing the right thing (again)?

Re:Injection?

[Phroggy]

Yeah, I was about to post the same thing. Can we use some different terminology when talking about helpfully contributing code to a database project?

Re:Very Niiiice

[Chineseyes]

Why on earth would you compare MySQL with Access? I'm more of a Postgres guy myself but even Mysql deserves better than that.

6.0 in 2008?

[JumboMessiah]

Mysql 5.1 has been in preproduction since November 2005 and still isn't available as a GA release (aka don't use it in production). Are they sure they can get a 6.0 GA release out by next fall?

This is really good of Google to contribute this back, I'm just wondering how long it will be before we all can utilize their changes. I hate to see the code stay stuck in the devel cycle for three years when Goggle is using it to their advantage right now at this very moment.

Re:Injection?

[necro2607]

Yeah, who writes these headlines? It's like, let's throw together the most fucking sensationalist possible combination of words to evoke certain responses in peoples' minds when they read this headline. Instead of just writing something constructive like "MySQL adds code from Google", it has to be some sensationalistic crap so as to make people go "OMG SQL injection?!? Sum1 haxed MySQL??" and immediately read the article. What is this, FOX News or something? :P

Re:MySQL?

[marcansoft]

That's like saying PCs are toys, because banks use mainframes to handle your credit card transactions.

That a device or program isn't suited for a certain task doesn't mean it's a toy.

Re:Hells yeah

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Look in the corporate space. Oracle is everywhere. SQLServer is around (not popular in my experience). Mysql is nowhere.

Define "coprorate space." Big companies tend to be Oracle or SQL Server shops, true; really big companies tend to be Oracle or DB2. But there are a lot of small and medium-sized businesses using MySQL -- and because there a lot more SMBs than there are megacorporations, and because DBA demand doesn't scale linearly (a 10,000-employee corporation doesn't need a hundred times as many DBAs as a hundred-employee corporation) there's plenty of MySQL work out there. Postgres, unfortunately, not so much.

Umm No...

[cmdrbuzz]

You'd be wrong then. Have a look at the Oracle Store and you can get Standard One for $149 per user (5 User minimum @$745.00)
Or you could get unlimited users for $4995 per CPU....

Oracle is expensive, its just not that ridiculously expensive.

Re:Transplant to Postgres?

[CastrTroy]

See, that model falls apart once you have a database with 50 tables. Because you have to load and parse a lot of script for every page load. I'm not sure how much (if anything) is cached by PHP, and how much recompiling has to be done on each load. Also, if you want to break you stuff up into a lot of different classes, with each class in a different file, then it quickly becomes a large mess of stuff to include in each page. I find that this is one of the major advantages of having a compiled language.

Re:MySQL?

[corifornia2]

What do you mean 'kinda' it supports them. You get an error if you dont have a parent, you can't delete something if it has children, you have the ability to cascade your deletes/updates . . .

As far as MyISAM, if you choose it you are choosing it for the speed of its reads . . . you are opting to not have foreign keys. If you want foreign keys, you use InnoDB . . . So saying "MySQL doesn't support foreign keys" is wrong, because it does via InnoDB.

You use SQL Server dont you . . .

Re:MySQL?

[einhverfr]

Actually, there are several cases where you may think that MySQL has foreign keys when it doesn't. So the support of foreign keys is not entirely complete.

If innodb is not installed, you get a MyISAM table without the foriegn key enforcement and not even a warning is given on table creation (you do get a warning when you insert, but the application is unlikely to be watching).

CREATE TABLE table2 (
        id int autoincrement primary key,
        foreign_id int references table1(id),
        test text
) type=innodb;

CREATE TABLE table2 (
      id int autoincrement primary key,
      foreign_id int,
      test text,
      FOREIGN KEY foreign_id REFERENCES table1(id)
) type=innodb;

In one of the above examples (won't say which one ;-) ), you don't get foreign key enforcement. No warning. just no enforcement.

Yes, MySQL has foriegn keys. It doesn't have them 100% but it does have them.