Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

First MySQL 5.5 Beta Released 95

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First MySQL 5.5 Beta Released

Comments Filter:
  • Editor Fail (Score:2, Informative)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Friday December 18, 2009 @01:40PM (#30489704) Journal

    Downloads are not here. Might try actually putting a full URL in there instead of MySQLServer5.5.0-m2

  • by Honken ( 665599 ) on Friday December 18, 2009 @01:43PM (#30489796)
    "near-asynchronous replication" is wrong, should be "semi-synchronous replication" as stated in the article. Striving for almost having replication asynchronous sounds like a poor implementation of synchronous replication :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 18, 2009 @02:01PM (#30490134)
    that links has nothing to do with signal/resignal.
  • Re:frist psotgres (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 18, 2009 @02:05PM (#30490242)

    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, though, has to be all of the index types we have available. PostgreSQL gives so many, for all sorts of data. Fuck, nobody ever has to store, say, geospatial data and access it quickly. Never!

    Oh, but don't forget the powerful PL/PgSQL language for writing functions. It's just fucking stupid to isolate frequently-used code in a single location. That might actually make testing and maintenance easy. That's a big No No in the MySQL world.

    Fuck, I hate all of these low-end database features that PostgreSQL offers. It makes it so much more lacking compared to MySQL.

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Friday December 18, 2009 @03:12PM (#30491330) Journal
    If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*. So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster. Really depends on what you want to do with your data. No more one-size fits all db anymore. Even Oracle has different versions ( with a huge variance in price) for different use cases.

    So depending on your use case, you can still make fun of it for not supporting many features, or for supporting too many features.

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"