Discussion:
5.0 The Most Important Release In mySQL's history
(too old to reply)
John Bailo
2005-09-27 20:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Finally, they answer the critics:

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html

"Key new features of MySQL 5.0 come in three groups:

a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions

The new ANSI SQL features include:

* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
General Protection Fault
2005-09-27 20:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions
* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
3:30PM up 70 days, 3:19, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Cyberwasteland
2005-09-27 21:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions
* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
3:30PM up 70 days, 3:19, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Wow, flaming over open source DB apps. What's next? Flaming over APA,
MLA, Turabian, or Chicago style citations?
s***@storkyak.com
2005-09-27 21:14:11 UTC
Permalink
I'll be the devil's advocate and say that if I wanted a giant feature
database I would use Oracle or postgresql. Now someone else will have
to write a fast but lightweight database server.
mlw
2005-09-28 14:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@storkyak.com
I'll be the devil's advocate and say that if I wanted a giant feature
database I would use Oracle or postgresql. Now someone else will have
to write a fast but lightweight database server.
LOL, actually, the term "lightweight" is a bogus crutch for people who don't
know what they are talking about.

If you want to talk about complexity, one can't argue that:

initdb -D my_database
postmaster -C my_database

Is too difficult to do.

If you want to talk about "code size" MySQL is bigger than PostgreSQL.

If you want to talk about speed, MySQL is faster only in the limited case of
simple queries and limited read/write activity. PostgreSQL wins in all real
world applications.
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-28 20:00:21 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
<***@nospam.no>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:59:44 +0000
Post by mlw
Post by s***@storkyak.com
I'll be the devil's advocate and say that if I wanted a giant feature
database I would use Oracle or postgresql. Now someone else will have
to write a fast but lightweight database server.
LOL, actually, the term "lightweight" is a bogus crutch for people who don't
know what they are talking about.
initdb -D my_database
postmaster -C my_database
Is too difficult to do.
If you want to talk about "code size" MySQL is bigger than PostgreSQL.
If you want to talk about speed, MySQL is faster only in the limited case of
simple queries and limited read/write activity. PostgreSQL wins in all real
world applications.
I suspect that it strongly depends on the problem. True,
PostgreSQL is beefier, more capable, more sophisticated.
(At least, AFAIK.) It is also overkill for such things as
serving a static webpage, which would just require access
to the "database" implemented by a file system (which
among other things has simple transaction capabilities
such as "record" [file] modification, creation, deletion,
and replacement, and that's about it).

Hypersonic is pure Java and is preconfigured within JBoss.
(It's a fairly simple beastie, as far as I can tell.)
Cloudscape is probably still around and was distributed
with Sun's J2EE 1.3 offering.

And then there's the proprietary solutions such as Oracle,
DB/2, SQL Server, and (if it counts) Jet with Access.

(I don't know where MySql fits in all this. I suspect it's
going to get squeeezed out eventually.)

Personally, I prefer (since I'm using gentoo; other distro's
mileage will of course vary)

$ /etc/init.d/postgres start

since it's offered with the distro; if one wants access to
port 5432 on one's subnetwork one can edit /etc/conf.d/postgres
to allow it.

Presumably similar options are available with mysql but frankly
I haven't looked into the matter.

And then there's XML/RDF/ESB. Oracle is already into that space
to some extent; I suspect PostgreSQL will not be far behind.
I suspect a lot of other solutions will explore that space, but
I don't know much about what solutions are in that space.

Choice is good but it has its drawbacks. :-)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Bob Hauck
2005-09-29 01:20:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:00:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by mlw
If you want to talk about speed, MySQL is faster only in the limited
case of simple queries and limited read/write activity. PostgreSQL
wins in all real world applications.
I suspect that it strongly depends on the problem.
The way I see it, there are at least three classes of problem:

1. Simple stuff that can use the file system or be read into RAM.

2. Stuff that needs the kind of simple indexed key=value queries
and basic locking that Berkeley DB or an ISAM library does.

3. Stuff that needs sophisticated queries and transaction
integrity.

What MySQL used to be is a #2 but with remote access and a subset of
SQL. That's why it was fast for those simple applications for which it
was suitable. That's why it was simple. But it has been evolving
toward #3. Some people have been pretending MySQL was a #3 all along,
which seems to annoy the hell out of mlw. Can't say that I blame him.

PostgreSQL has always been a #3. People think for some reason that it
is more complex than MySQL, but given all the stuff they've added to
MySQL I don't think that's true any longer. I've got a server I admin
for historical reasons that has both installed (user requests, not my
idea), and frankly I prefer PostgreSQL from an admin perspective.

Mlw's position seems to be that since #1 and #2 don't scale well and
have integrity issues you should not ever consider them. For business
applications I agree. If the business is successful, your app will
_have_ to scale, probably a lot more than you think. For all kinds of
other reasons you need to be able to embed business logic into the
database and you need to be able to ensure various kinds of integrity.

OTOH, for the kind of embedded applications I do, a #1 or #2 is just
what is needed. I can live with fewer guarantees in the interest of
lower resource requirements and higher raw performance since I get to
control a lot more about the environment the database operates in.

So saying "all real-world applications" is a bit broad, but only a bit.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
mlw
2005-09-29 09:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:00:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by mlw
If you want to talk about speed, MySQL is faster only in the limited
case of simple queries and limited read/write activity. PostgreSQL
wins in all real world applications.
I suspect that it strongly depends on the problem.
1. Simple stuff that can use the file system or be read into RAM.
2. Stuff that needs the kind of simple indexed key=value queries
and basic locking that Berkeley DB or an ISAM library does.
3. Stuff that needs sophisticated queries and transaction
integrity.
What MySQL used to be is a #2 but with remote access and a subset of
SQL. That's why it was fast for those simple applications for which it
was suitable. That's why it was simple. But it has been evolving
toward #3. Some people have been pretending MySQL was a #3 all along,
which seems to annoy the hell out of mlw. Can't say that I blame him.
My problem with MySQL is that it is like a ringing in my ear. When I consult
and say, bla, bla, bla, open source, bla, bla, cheaper, bla, bla, reliable,
etc.

I invariably get one of two responses: (From people with passing knowledge,
of course)

(1) Someone with real DBA experience:
"I don't think we should be using an open source database. (implying MySQL,
of course) They don't scale well and there are issues with licensing.

To which I need to explain why PostgreSQL *is* a good database.

(2) Someone without DBA experience:
"Why aren't you using MySQL, isn't it the standard, you know, like Microsoft
on open source?"

To which I have to explain that no, MySQL is a toy. I lacks very real and
very important features. There is no data integrity protection, even with
5.0, if it ever gets released, the additional features are poorly
implemented, not only that, they are *new* features and how much do you
trust that they will work as advertised?

Triggers? finally? cursors cool, wait, non-scrolling? WTF? That's not a
cursor.
Post by Bob Hauck
PostgreSQL has always been a #3. People think for some reason that it
is more complex than MySQL, but given all the stuff they've added to
MySQL I don't think that's true any longer. I've got a server I admin
for historical reasons that has both installed (user requests, not my
idea), and frankly I prefer PostgreSQL from an admin perspective.
Absolutely agree.
Post by Bob Hauck
Mlw's position seems to be that since #1 and #2 don't scale well and
have integrity issues you should not ever consider them.
Not exactly. In open source, it is always said that we use "the best tool
for the job." IS this not correct? My point is that MySQL is *never* the
best tool for the job. It can't do jobs 1, 2, or 3 well.

My problem with MySQL proponents is that they don't understand databases all
that well, and essentially argue that ignorance of database issues is, in
fact, a valid technical reason for choosing MySQL.
Post by Bob Hauck
For business
applications I agree. If the business is successful, your app will
_have_ to scale, probably a lot more than you think. For all kinds of
other reasons you need to be able to embed business logic into the
database and you need to be able to ensure various kinds of integrity.
OTOH, for the kind of embedded applications I do, a #1 or #2 is just
what is needed. I can live with fewer guarantees in the interest of
lower resource requirements and higher raw performance since I get to
control a lot more about the environment the database operates in.
Yes, in this case I would use a roll your own, SQLite, Berkeley, or even
Mix.
Post by Bob Hauck
So saying "all real-world applications" is a bit broad, but only a bit.
Hyperbole is a hugely gigantic problem that threatens humanity.
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 13:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by s***@storkyak.com
I'll be the devil's advocate and say that if I wanted a giant feature
database I would use Oracle or postgresql. Now someone else will have
to write a fast but lightweight database server.
LOL, actually, the term "lightweight" is a bogus crutch for people who don't
know what they are talking about.
initdb -D my_database
postmaster -C my_database
Is too difficult to do.
If you want to talk about "code size" MySQL is bigger than PostgreSQL.
If you want to talk about speed, MySQL is faster only in the limited case of
simple queries and limited read/write activity. PostgreSQL wins in all real
world applications.
Right. Comparing MySQL to any other RDBMS in terms of feature set and speed
is a pick-one proposition. Either it's fast, or it's got a lot of features.
MySQL is *not* fast when using any storage backend other than ISAM.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:35AM up 71 days, 20:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.26, 0.06, 0.02
John Bailo
2005-09-29 14:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
Right. Comparing MySQL to any other RDBMS in terms of feature set and speed
is a pick-one proposition. Either it's fast, or it's got a lot of
features. MySQL is *not* fast when using any storage backend other than
ISAM.
http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/benchmarks/eweek.html

"In a February 2002 database benchmark test performed by Ziff Davis Media
Inc., the company behind PC Magazine, eWeek and other well-known
publications, the MySQL database server stands out as a winner. The MySQL
server is presented as having the overall best performance and scalability
along with Oracle9i. Also, the MySQL server excelled in stability, ease of
tuning and connectivity."
--
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
mlw
2005-09-29 12:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
Right. Comparing MySQL to any other RDBMS in terms of feature set and speed
is a pick-one proposition. Either it's fast, or it's got a lot of
features. MySQL is *not* fast when using any storage backend other than
ISAM.
http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/benchmarks/eweek.html
"In a February 2002 database benchmark test performed by Ziff Davis Media
Inc., the company behind PC Magazine, eWeek and other well-known
publications, the MySQL database server stands out as a winner. The MySQL
server is presented as having the overall best performance and scalability
along with Oracle9i. Also, the MySQL server excelled in stability, ease of
tuning and connectivity."
Yes, typical MySQL benchmarketing(tm).

I like this line the best (from the real article)

"MySQL's great performance was due mostly to our use of an in-memory query
results cache that is new in MySQL 4.0.1. When we tested without this
cache, MySQL's performance fell by two-thirds."

What this means is that MySQL's performance as a "real database," i.e. with
data integrity and ACID transactions isn't even in the ballpark.

PostgreSQL wasn't tested.
Bob
2005-09-30 10:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by mlw
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
Right. Comparing MySQL to any other RDBMS in terms of feature set and speed
is a pick-one proposition. Either it's fast, or it's got a lot of
features. MySQL is *not* fast when using any storage backend other than
ISAM.
http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/benchmarks/eweek.html
"In a February 2002 database benchmark test performed by Ziff Davis Media
Inc., the company behind PC Magazine, eWeek and other well-known
publications, the MySQL database server stands out as a winner. The MySQL
server is presented as having the overall best performance and scalability
along with Oracle9i. Also, the MySQL server excelled in stability, ease of
tuning and connectivity."
Yes, typical MySQL benchmarketing(tm).
I like this line the best (from the real article)
"MySQL's great performance was due mostly to our use of an in-memory query
results cache that is new in MySQL 4.0.1. When we tested without this
cache, MySQL's performance fell by two-thirds."
What this means is that MySQL's performance as a "real database," i.e. with
data integrity and ACID transactions isn't even in the ballpark.
PostgreSQL wasn't tested.
I am really enjoying your critique here, mlw!

I looked into various db's in 2001. MySQL was not very good at all. I
think MySQL has improved a lot, but still quite a ways to go. Postgres
was looking very nice even back then.

Can you pls offer us a comparison:

Postgres vs.

DB2
Informix
MS SQL
Oracle
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-scammers/ A new epidemic - the
Nigerian "romance scam": Nigerian crooks using dating sites, Yahoo chat
rooms and Yahoo messenger to con people. Using fake profiles with photos
of real models, they "romance" both men and women and then con them.
Join the group to learn more.
Bob
2005-09-29 10:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@storkyak.com
I'll be the devil's advocate and say that if I wanted a giant feature
database I would use Oracle or postgresql. Now someone else will have
to write a fast but lightweight database server.
MySQL is already kicking Oracle and Postgres and the rest on speed of
handling queries, even in robust situations. It hasn't slowed down yet;
what's your problem?
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-scammers/ A new epidemic - the
Nigerian "romance scam": Nigerian crooks using dating sites, Yahoo chat
rooms and Yahoo messenger to con people. Using fake profiles with photos
of real models, they "romance" both men and women and then con them.
Join the group to learn more.
John Bailo
2005-09-27 21:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
Uh, right.

Wake me up when SQL Server offers load balancing clustering.

The stuff they promised to deliver with Wolfpack in 1998.

What?

Wolfpack?

Oh, I see, you forgot...
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-28 00:00:02 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<***@texeme.com>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:20:35 -0700
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
Uh, right.
Wake me up when SQL Server offers load balancing clustering.
The stuff they promised to deliver with Wolfpack in 1998.
What?
Wolfpack?
Oh, I see, you forgot...
Does it matter when Access has such pretty icons? :-)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
John Bailo
2005-09-28 02:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Does it matter when Access has such pretty icons? :-)
LOL.

Dig: I was helping someone at work decode an Excel macro.

The problem was on opening a text data file ( *.DAT ).

The file was both fix field delimited and comma delimited with double
quote separators.

The issue was he was missing a field, and it was due to the
WorkBooks.OpenText method.

So after drilling down (F2) in the online object browser -- which
stopped after OpenText ( that is, it did not give any information other
than the method name, did not define its attributes, etc ) we go to
MSDN. There we find that the way it defines an attribute Fields that
defines what fields to import with a one-dimesional Array of
two-dimensional arrays. The first number in the 2-d arrays is the
field and the second is an enumerated constant. The field that wasn't
imported had a value that said "skip". We had to look all that up in MSDN.

Makes sense?

Yes

Easy to use?

mmmm....
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 13:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Does it matter when Access has such pretty icons? :-)
LOL.
Dig: I was helping someone at work decode an Excel macro.
The problem was on opening a text data file ( *.DAT ).
The file was both fix field delimited and comma delimited with double
quote separators.
The issue was he was missing a field, and it was due to the
WorkBooks.OpenText method.
So after drilling down (F2) in the online object browser -- which
stopped after OpenText ( that is, it did not give any information other
than the method name, did not define its attributes, etc ) we go to
MSDN. There we find that the way it defines an attribute Fields that
defines what fields to import with a one-dimesional Array of
two-dimensional arrays. The first number in the 2-d arrays is the
field and the second is an enumerated constant. The field that wasn't
imported had a value that said "skip". We had to look all that up in MSDN.
Makes sense?
Yes
Easy to use?
mmmm....
What does this have to do with Access?
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:35AM up 71 days, 20:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.26, 0.06, 0.02
John Bailo
2005-09-29 14:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
What does this have to do with Access?
Exactly.

Let's never discuss Access again in this ng.

Access is the Fischer Price of dbs.
--
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 17:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
What does this have to do with Access?
Exactly.
Let's never discuss Access again in this ng.
Access is the Fischer Price of dbs.
That would be "Fisher Price."

In which case MySQL is the Little Tikes of DBs.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:30PM up 72 days, 19 mins, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 18:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
What does this have to do with Access?
Exactly.
Let's never discuss Access again in this ng.
Access is the Fischer Price of dbs.
That would be "Fisher Price."
In which case MySQL is the Little Tikes of DBs.
Errr, Little Tykes.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
1:45PM up 72 days, 1:34, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-29 19:00:03 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
<***@must.be.joking.mil>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:36:23 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
What does this have to do with Access?
Exactly.
Let's never discuss Access again in this ng.
Access is the Fischer Price of dbs.
That would be "Fisher Price."
In which case MySQL is the Little Tikes of DBs.
My understanding is that "Jet" is the actual database, not Access,
which is merely a front end somewhat like TOAD, GtkSQL, or Paradox.

(For the record, it's http://www.fisher-price.com/us/default.asp,
and according to Netcraft it's running Win2k -- hinted at by
'default.asp' in the URL.)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
l***@uku.co.uk
2005-09-28 00:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
Uh, right.
Wake me up when SQL Server offers load balancing clustering.
Seems that nobody bothered waking you up for the past 5 years.
Clustering and load balancing for SQL Server has been avaiable since
SQL Server 2000 shipped over 5 years ago.


http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/1583581
Linønut
2005-09-28 11:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Post by John Bailo
Wake me up when SQL Server offers load balancing clustering.
Seems that nobody bothered waking you up for the past 5 years.
Clustering and load balancing for SQL Server has been avaiable since
SQL Server 2000 shipped over 5 years ago.
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/1583581
I haven't read that article, but my brief experience with Windows 2003
clustering was that it is not quite clustering. More akin to failover.

But, I should read that article at least before I comment more. Might
get around to it <sigh>.
--
Code is community.
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 13:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
Uh, right.
Wake me up when SQL Server offers load balancing clustering.
Seems that nobody bothered waking you up for the past 5 years.
Clustering and load balancing for SQL Server has been avaiable since
SQL Server 2000 shipped over 5 years ago.
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/1583581
What a shocker. Bailo doesn't know what the fuck he's writing about.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:35AM up 71 days, 20:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.26, 0.06, 0.02
John Bailo
2005-09-29 14:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Seems that nobody bothered waking you up for the past 5 years.
Clustering and load balancing for SQL Server has been avaiable since
SQL Server 2000 shipped over 5 years ago.
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/1583581
What a shocker. Bailo doesn't know what the fuck he's writing about.
Your article is dated 2003.

Here's one from 2005.

Clustering
Last updated Sep 13, 2005.
http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=sqlserver&seqNum=38&rl=1

Load Balancing Cluster
In a true load-balancing cluster, all servers (called "nodes") act as one.
The single group of computers is called a quorum. A computer or software
service called the "quorum manager" creates the illusion of a single server
to the outside world. The quorum manager passes processing requests off to
one or more server(s). This sharing of work produces a very powerful
virtual computer. If one of the nodes leaves the cluster, the quorum
manager just hands the work to another server.

While this type of clustering sounds pretty cool, *SQL* *Server* *doesn't*
do it (yet). Sorry about that, it just doesn't! It's OK, though, read on.
--
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 13:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
Uh, right.
Wake me up when SQL Server offers load balancing clustering.
The stuff they promised to deliver with Wolfpack in 1998.
What?
Wolfpack?
Oh, I see, you forgot...
Whoo hoo. Setup transactional replication (MySQL: what's that?) between
servers and use round-robin DNS.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:35AM up 71 days, 20:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.26, 0.06, 0.02
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-27 23:00:12 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
<***@must.be.joking.mil>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:37:30 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions
* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
Wow. You prefer those to SQL Server or Access? :-)

There's hope for you yet.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 13:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:37:30 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions
* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
Wow. You prefer those to SQL Server or Access? :-)
There's hope for you yet.
I have always hated Access. MySQL and postgresql don't come close to
MSSQL's feature set.

There's not a single application in our company that could use MySQL
instead of MSSQL.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:30AM up 71 days, 20:19, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-29 17:00:08 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
<***@must.be.joking.mil>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:39:19 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:37:30 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions
* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
Wow. You prefer those to SQL Server or Access? :-)
There's hope for you yet.
I have always hated Access. MySQL and postgresql don't come close to
MSSQL's feature set.
There's not a single application in our company that could use MySQL
instead of MSSQL.
And the reasons (without getting into too much technical detail,
or revealing too much about your business) are...?

Just out of curiosity.

Granted, all databases have their differences regarding
such things as stored procedures (I'm an Oracle man,
myself (out of necessity), know PostgreSQL and a little
Hypersonic, know about Tandem, MySQL, Cloudscape,
and DB/2).

I'll admit I'm also wondering about the comparison between,
all other things (such as hardware) being identical:

[1] MS SQL Server on Windows 2003 Server Edition.
[2] MS SQL Server on Windows XP Professional Edition.
(This one's easy.)
[3] Jet (Access) on Windows XP Professional Edition.
[4] PostgreSQL on Windows 2003 Server Edition.
[5] PostgreSQL on Windows XP Professional Edition.
[6] PostgreSQL on FreeBSD.
[7] PostgreSQL on Linux.
[8] MySQL on Windows 2003 Server Edition.
[9] MySQL on Windows XP Professional Edition.
[10] MySQL on FreeBSD.
[11] MySQL on Linux.

There's a fair number of issues here:

[a] Paging performance.
[b] File block storage and retrieval.
[c] Lock management.
[d] Transaction performance.
[e] SMP-awareness (on a single machine but with multiple physical CPUs).
[f] Clustering (the ability for multiple networked nodes to perform
a database-related task without tripping over each other).
[g] Backups, restores, and general maintenance.

and last, but most certainly not least,

[h] raw, unadulterated throughput (either records or megabytes/second)
from outside clients, either thin or fat.

if one has a big enough problem. ;-)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 17:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:39:19 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
I have always hated Access. MySQL and postgresql don't come close to
MSSQL's feature set.
There's not a single application in our company that could use MySQL
instead of MSSQL.
And the reasons (without getting into too much technical detail,
or revealing too much about your business) are...?
DTS (ETL), indexed views, transactional replication, just for starters.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:25PM up 72 days, 14 mins, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-29 19:00:03 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
<***@must.be.joking.mil>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:33:46 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:39:19 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
I have always hated Access. MySQL and postgresql don't come close to
MSSQL's feature set.
There's not a single application in our company that could use MySQL
instead of MSSQL.
And the reasons (without getting into too much technical detail,
or revealing too much about your business) are...?
DTS (ETL), indexed views, transactional replication, just for starters.
Data Transformation Services (AFAIK, also available in Oracle).
Extract, Transform, and Load (AFAIK, also available in Oracle).

A Google on "SQL Server Oracle comparison" coughed up the
following article:

http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/2170201

which suggests that Oracle is more capable but also far more expensive,
especially since most DBAs would put it on heavy equipment such
as a multiheaded SPARC.

A Google on "SQL Server MySQL comparison" coughed up

http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/3087841

which suggests that SQL Server is more capable but also more
expensive ($1489 for 5 cals vs. $495/installed copy -- and that's
for commercial licensees).

I'm having troubles finding a PostgreSQL vs. SQLServer comparison
on that website.

It's an interesting problem all around.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 20:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:33:46 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:39:19 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
I have always hated Access. MySQL and postgresql don't come close to
MSSQL's feature set.
There's not a single application in our company that could use MySQL
instead of MSSQL.
And the reasons (without getting into too much technical detail,
or revealing too much about your business) are...?
DTS (ETL), indexed views, transactional replication, just for starters.
Data Transformation Services (AFAIK, also available in Oracle).
Extract, Transform, and Load (AFAIK, also available in Oracle).
A Google on "SQL Server Oracle comparison" coughed up the
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/2170201
which suggests that Oracle is more capable but also far more expensive,
especially since most DBAs would put it on heavy equipment such
as a multiheaded SPARC.
A Google on "SQL Server MySQL comparison" coughed up
http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/3087841
which suggests that SQL Server is more capable but also more
expensive ($1489 for 5 cals vs. $495/installed copy -- and that's
for commercial licensees).
I'm having troubles finding a PostgreSQL vs. SQLServer comparison
on that website.
It's an interesting problem all around.
Why are you bringing up Oracle?

pgsql doesn't have DTS either.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
3:00PM up 72 days, 2:49, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-29 23:00:03 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
<***@must.be.joking.mil>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:07:43 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:33:46 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:39:19 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
I have always hated Access. MySQL and postgresql don't come close to
MSSQL's feature set.
There's not a single application in our company that could use MySQL
instead of MSSQL.
And the reasons (without getting into too much technical detail,
or revealing too much about your business) are...?
DTS (ETL), indexed views, transactional replication, just for starters.
Data Transformation Services (AFAIK, also available in Oracle).
Extract, Transform, and Load (AFAIK, also available in Oracle).
A Google on "SQL Server Oracle comparison" coughed up the
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/2170201
which suggests that Oracle is more capable but also far more expensive,
especially since most DBAs would put it on heavy equipment such
as a multiheaded SPARC.
A Google on "SQL Server MySQL comparison" coughed up
http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/3087841
which suggests that SQL Server is more capable but also more
expensive ($1489 for 5 cals vs. $495/installed copy -- and that's
for commercial licensees).
I'm having troubles finding a PostgreSQL vs. SQLServer comparison
on that website.
It's an interesting problem all around.
Why are you bringing up Oracle?
Mostly because I use it at work and it is a competitor to MS SQL.
Post by General Protection Fault
pgsql doesn't have DTS either.
It would appear that a contributory tool named 'PXSQL' is available.
Hard to say exactly what it does and what it needs to do it, but it
refers to .XML and .XSL. It is referenced from the PostgreSQL website.


http://www.postgresql.org/docs/interfaces =>
http://www.samse.fr/GPL/pxsql/
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
John Bailo
2005-09-30 00:38:08 UTC
Permalink
DTS
DTS is a code generator for VB.

As in, any language which can connect and run SQL BULK INSERT can 'transform
data'
--
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
General Protection Fault
2005-09-30 01:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
DTS
DTS is a code generator for VB.
No, it most definitely is not. It can export a DTS package as a VBScript
which *invokes* DTS components. Much different. But then you don't
know sweet FA about DTS.
Post by John Bailo
As in, any language which can connect and run SQL BULK INSERT can 'transform
data'
Idiot.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:35PM up 72 days, 8:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.01, 0.04, 0.01
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-30 16:00:13 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<***@texeme.com>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:38:08 -0700
Post by John Bailo
DTS
DTS is a code generator for VB.
As in, any language which can connect and run SQL BULK INSERT
can 'transform data'
I see little difference between LISP, VBasic, and XML at this point;
all transmit data and can describe transformations of other data.
One advantage for VBasic: it's well-known and widely used. However,
I suspect XML will be even better known and more widely used, if it
isn't already.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
General Protection Fault
2005-09-30 18:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:38:08 -0700
Post by John Bailo
DTS
DTS is a code generator for VB.
As in, any language which can connect and run SQL BULK INSERT
can 'transform data'
I see little difference between LISP, VBasic, and XML at this point;
all transmit data and can describe transformations of other data.
One advantage for VBasic: it's well-known and widely used. However,
I suspect XML will be even better known and more widely used, if it
isn't already.
Can you drag and drop a data pump from a text file into a table using LISP,
VB or XML? No. Can you have it fire off a message queue entry if it fails,
or send an e-mail if it succeeds? All without code? Only in DTS.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
1:15PM up 73 days, 1:04, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-30 21:00:03 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
<***@must.be.joking.mil>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:24:46 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:38:08 -0700
Post by John Bailo
DTS
DTS is a code generator for VB.
As in, any language which can connect and run SQL BULK INSERT
can 'transform data'
I see little difference between LISP, VBasic, and XML at this point;
all transmit data and can describe transformations of other data.
One advantage for VBasic: it's well-known and widely used. However,
I suspect XML will be even better known and more widely used, if it
isn't already.
Can you drag and drop a data pump from a text file into a
table using LISP, VB or XML? No. Can you have it fire off
a message queue entry if it fails, or send an e-mail if it
succeeds? All without code? Only in DTS.
Well, there you have it, folks. Microsoft has it all over Oracle,
PostgreSQL, or MySQL because one can drag and drop DTS specifications.

:-P

Now, suppose one drags and drops it into the wrong area.
Undo?

Suppose one drags and drops it, and network fails.
Redo?

Suppose one does a bunch of drags and drops, and wants to repeat
that sequence later on. Scripting?

Suppose one does scripting and then wants to generalize and/or
parameterize the problem later.

Suppose one wants to format the results differently. Customization?
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
General Protection Fault
2005-10-03 14:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:24:46 GMT
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:38:08 -0700
Post by John Bailo
DTS
DTS is a code generator for VB.
As in, any language which can connect and run SQL BULK INSERT
can 'transform data'
I see little difference between LISP, VBasic, and XML at this point;
all transmit data and can describe transformations of other data.
One advantage for VBasic: it's well-known and widely used. However,
I suspect XML will be even better known and more widely used, if it
isn't already.
Can you drag and drop a data pump from a text file into a
table using LISP, VB or XML? No. Can you have it fire off
a message queue entry if it fails, or send an e-mail if it
succeeds? All without code? Only in DTS.
Well, there you have it, folks. Microsoft has it all over Oracle,
PostgreSQL, or MySQL because one can drag and drop DTS specifications.
:-P
Now, suppose one drags and drops it into the wrong area.
Undo?
The data doesn't move while you're designing the application.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Suppose one drags and drops it, and network fails.
Redo?
The data doesn't move while you're designing the application.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Suppose one does a bunch of drags and drops, and wants to repeat
that sequence later on. Scripting?
You save the DTS app as a package and run it whenever you want, like on
a schedule.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Suppose one does scripting and then wants to generalize and/or
parameterize the problem later.
Ditto.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Suppose one wants to format the results differently. Customization?
It doesn't produce reports.

Please read at least some basics about DTS before critiquing.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
9:10AM up 75 days, 20:59, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
John Bailo
2005-10-03 15:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Suppose one does a bunch of drags and drops, and wants to repeat
that sequence later on. Scripting?
You save the DTS app as a package and run it whenever you want, like on
a schedule.
DTS under the covers is a code generator for VBS.

You can save a DTS 'package' in any of four (4) output formats including
VBS.

So, therefore, anything that can script/code java can do the same exact
thing...it's just code using ODBC or other database drivers that run SQL
tasks such as BULK INSERT. Java/jdbc can do the job just as easily (as
can SQL itself on mySQL or any other database).

Plus there are hundreds of code designers in OSS that can create things that
look like DTS packages in many different languages including Java.
--
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
General Protection Fault
2005-10-03 19:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Suppose one does a bunch of drags and drops, and wants to repeat
that sequence later on. Scripting?
You save the DTS app as a package and run it whenever you want, like on
a schedule.
DTS under the covers is a code generator for VBS.
It generates VBS code that runs DTS components.
Post by John Bailo
You can save a DTS 'package' in any of four (4) output formats including
VBS.
Ever looked at that code, twit? It calls DTS COM components.
Post by John Bailo
So, therefore, anything that can script/code java can do the same exact
thing...it's just code using ODBC or other database drivers that run SQL
tasks such as BULK INSERT. Java/jdbc can do the job just as easily (as
can SQL itself on mySQL or any other database).
Plus there are hundreds of code designers in OSS that can create things that
look like DTS packages in many different languages including Java.
Your premise is flawed, so the rest is fucked too.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
2:00PM up 76 days, 1:49, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
DFS
2005-09-29 19:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I'll admit I'm also wondering about the comparison between,
[1] MS SQL Server on Windows 2003 Server Edition.
[2] MS SQL Server on Windows XP Professional Edition.
(This one's easy.)
[3] Jet (Access) on Windows XP Professional Edition.
[4] PostgreSQL on Windows 2003 Server Edition.
[5] PostgreSQL on Windows XP Professional Edition.
[6] PostgreSQL on FreeBSD.
[7] PostgreSQL on Linux.
[8] MySQL on Windows 2003 Server Edition.
[9] MySQL on Windows XP Professional Edition.
[10] MySQL on FreeBSD.
[11] MySQL on Linux.
I can tell you this: Access/Jet will blow all the others away in query and
reporting speed, and returning records to the user's screen, and scrolling
through recordsets.

It's probably - or definitely - inferior in every other category you mention
(though you can nest transactions 7 levels deep using the DAO library), but
for fast data access and manipulation, nothing approaches it.

Being a file-server system, backups and restores are easy as well.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
[a] Paging performance.
[b] File block storage and retrieval.
[c] Lock management.
[d] Transaction performance.
[e] SMP-awareness (on a single machine but with multiple physical
CPUs). [f] Clustering (the ability for multiple networked nodes to
perform a database-related task without tripping over each other).
[g] Backups, restores, and general maintenance.
and last, but most certainly not least,
[h] raw, unadulterated throughput (either records or megabytes/second)
from outside clients, either thin or fat.
if one has a big enough problem. ;-)
John Bailo
2005-09-29 19:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
I can tell you this: Access/Jet will blow all the others away in query and
reporting speed, and returning records to the user's screen, and scrolling
through recordsets.
Put down the pipe.
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-29 23:00:03 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<***@texeme.com>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:42:03 -0700
Post by John Bailo
Post by DFS
I can tell you this: Access/Jet will blow all the others
away in query and reporting speed, and returning records
to the user's screen, and scrolling through recordsets.
Put down the pipe.
No, he's probably right. Jet runs locally and doesn't
require the network layer; this will speed things up in
the Windows World(tm).

All other solutions run Somewhere Else(tm).
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
John Bailo
2005-09-29 23:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
No, he's probably right. Jet runs locally and doesn't
require the network layer; this will speed things up in
the Windows World(tm).
All other solutions run Somewhere Else(tm).
WHAT?

You mean I can't run a mySql database on the same server as my web server???
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-30 16:00:12 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<***@texeme.com>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:32:52 -0700
Post by John Bailo
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
No, he's probably right. Jet runs locally and doesn't
require the network layer; this will speed things up in
the Windows World(tm).
All other solutions run Somewhere Else(tm).
WHAT?
You mean I can't run a mySql database on the same server
as my web server???
No, you can't. It's not Microsoft Approved(tm). :-)

And without Microsoft Approval(tm), of course, it's
Somewhere Else(tm). Can't be too careful with
Al Qaeda running around. Oh, wait, wrong argument...

(Personally, I prefer PostgreSQL. It's a good point, though,
and I frankly have little data on which solutions are faster.)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Bob
2005-09-29 10:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions
* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
Wow, they've *almost* caught up to postgresql and Firebird. Almost.
It doesn't matter. In terms of performance, MySQL is at times beating
Oracle, MS SQL, Postgres and DB2. The progress of this app in the past 4
yrs is just incredible.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-scammers/ A new epidemic - the
Nigerian "romance scam": Nigerian crooks using dating sites, Yahoo chat
rooms and Yahoo messenger to con people. Using fake profiles with photos
of real models, they "romance" both men and women and then con them.
Join the group to learn more.
l***@uku.co.uk
2005-09-28 00:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions
* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
Linux seems to be doing well in the corporate/server world.
Unfortunately the same can't be said for MySQL. Despite being free
their customer list is quite small. Compare their list to Oracle,
SQL-Server, InterSystems, IBM, Teradata, Informix, etc. and there's
nothing to compare. Companies simply aren't using MySQL in any
appreciable numbers. Despite being $10's or $100's of thousands
cheaper.
John Bailo
2005-09-28 02:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Linux seems to be doing well in the corporate/server world.
Unfortunately the same can't be said for MySQL. Despite being free
their customer list is quite small. Compare their list to Oracle,
SQL-Server, InterSystems, IBM, Teradata, Informix, etc. and there's
nothing to compare. Companies simply aren't using MySQL in any
appreciable numbers. Despite being $10's or $100's of thousands
cheaper.
Their customer list ( see below ) is extensive but obviously missing
many of the top names you'd expect.

However, I think the 5.0 release is going to change all that.

My reason? It was my DBA -- who has been a diehard SQL Server guy --
who sent me the press release and said that he's going to benchmark it
for us. He was the one who saw that it had stored procedures and views
and so on -- tools of his trade as a database programmer.

If it can get past his rigid expectations, then nothing is stopping it now.

http://www.mysql.com/customers/

MySQL stock? Oh, yeah, I'm buying some when it comes out...
General Protection Fault
2005-09-29 13:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Linux seems to be doing well in the corporate/server world.
Unfortunately the same can't be said for MySQL. Despite being free
their customer list is quite small. Compare their list to Oracle,
SQL-Server, InterSystems, IBM, Teradata, Informix, etc. and there's
nothing to compare. Companies simply aren't using MySQL in any
appreciable numbers. Despite being $10's or $100's of thousands
cheaper.
Their customer list ( see below ) is extensive but obviously missing
many of the top names you'd expect.
However, I think the 5.0 release is going to change all that.
My reason? It was my DBA -- who has been a diehard SQL Server guy --
who sent me the press release and said that he's going to benchmark it
for us. He was the one who saw that it had stored procedures and views
and so on -- tools of his trade as a database programmer.
If it can get past his rigid expectations, then nothing is stopping it now.
http://www.mysql.com/customers/
MySQL stock? Oh, yeah, I'm buying some when it comes out...
Yeah, but you also bought Novell stock, and we know how well that's going.

Don't bother including a biased selected timeframe stock chart vs. MSFT.
It's not relevant.
--
"Why would I pay $50 for an app I will use one time?"
-- Linønut, defending his piracy of Partition Magic in c.o.l.a
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:35AM up 71 days, 20:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.26, 0.06, 0.02
John Bailo
2005-09-29 14:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Protection Fault
Don't bother including a biased selected timeframe stock chart vs. MSFT.
It's not relevant.
Well relevancy was never your strong suit.
--
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
Tim Smith
2005-09-28 04:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Linux seems to be doing well in the corporate/server world.
Unfortunately the same can't be said for MySQL. Despite being free
their customer list is quite small. Compare their list to Oracle,
SQL-Server, InterSystems, IBM, Teradata, Informix, etc. and there's
nothing to compare. Companies simply aren't using MySQL in any
appreciable numbers. Despite being $10's or $100's of thousands
cheaper.
<http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/success-stories/>
--
--Tim Smith
John Bailo
2005-09-28 05:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Smith
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Linux seems to be doing well in the corporate/server world.
Unfortunately the same can't be said for MySQL. Despite being free
their customer list is quite small. Compare their list to Oracle,
SQL-Server, InterSystems, IBM, Teradata, Informix, etc. and there's
nothing to compare. Companies simply aren't using MySQL in any
appreciable numbers. Despite being $10's or $100's of thousands
cheaper.
<http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/success-stories/>
Yes, see part of the Linux/OSS revolution -- for those who are too blind
to see it is not a bunch of old companies locked into the Microsoft
deadlock suddenly "breaking free" and discovering Linux.

It's going to be about newer, freer organizations, which are not
waterlogged with M$ contracts, that will simply be with Linux from the
get go...and, overtime, their reduced costs, greater efficiency and
nimbleness will simply let them overwhelm the old M$-bound competitors.
l***@lycos.com
2005-09-29 00:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
a) ANSI SQL standard features formerly unknown to MySQL
b) ANSI SQL standard compliance of existing MySQL features
c) New MySQL Storage Engines, Tools and Extensions
* Views (both read-only and updatable views)
* Stored Procedures and Stored Functions, using the SQL:2003
syntax, which is also used by IBM's DB2
* Triggers (row-level)
* Server-side cursors (read-only, non-scrolling)"
mysql is total crap. postgresql is faster, more scalable and superior
in all but a few convoluted scenarios.

hilarious that postgresql runs best, has the most features like
triggers that can call C++ routines and has the best configuration and
support tools on windows. like most other software, the linux version
is crap compared to the windows version.

the oss losers who write mysql better not quit their day jobs flipping
burgers.
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-29 17:00:07 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, linux-***@lycos.com
<linux-***@lycos.com>
wrote
on 28 Sep 2005 17:14:21 -0700
Post by l***@lycos.com
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
[crunch for brevity]
Post by l***@lycos.com
mysql is total crap. postgresql is faster, more scalable and superior
in all but a few convoluted scenarios.
hilarious that postgresql runs best, has the most features like
triggers that can call C++ routines and has the best configuration and
support tools on windows. like most other software, the linux version
is crap compared to the windows version.
the oss losers who write mysql better not quit their day jobs flipping
burgers.
Erm...how does PostgreSQL on Windows compare to SQL Server?
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
l***@lycos.com
2005-09-29 23:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on 28 Sep 2005 17:14:21 -0700
Post by l***@lycos.com
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
[crunch for brevity]
Post by l***@lycos.com
mysql is total crap. postgresql is faster, more scalable and superior
in all but a few convoluted scenarios.
hilarious that postgresql runs best, has the most features like
triggers that can call C++ routines and has the best configuration and
support tools on windows. like most other software, the linux version
is crap compared to the windows version.
the oss losers who write mysql better not quit their day jobs flipping
burgers.
Erm...how does PostgreSQL on Windows compare to SQL Server?
--
It's still legal to go .sigless.
sql server easily beats it in most real world scenarios.
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-09-30 16:00:13 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, linux-***@lycos.com
<linux-***@lycos.com>
wrote
on 29 Sep 2005 16:44:40 -0700
Post by l***@lycos.com
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on 28 Sep 2005 17:14:21 -0700
Post by l***@lycos.com
Post by John Bailo
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html
[crunch for brevity]
Post by l***@lycos.com
mysql is total crap. postgresql is faster, more scalable and superior
in all but a few convoluted scenarios.
hilarious that postgresql runs best, has the most features like
triggers that can call C++ routines and has the best configuration and
support tools on windows. like most other software, the linux version
is crap compared to the windows version.
the oss losers who write mysql better not quit their day jobs flipping
burgers.
Erm...how does PostgreSQL on Windows compare to SQL Server?
--
It's still legal to go .sigless.
sql server easily beats it in most real world scenarios.
Well, of course it does. After all, the highly specific
and detailed points you made above are proof positive
that most industry leaders prefer Microsoft SQL Server.

Erm, wait, you didn't have any. Come again? :-P
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Loading...