RE: mysql - OT
- From: "Pakhutkin, Maxim (Max)" <maxim.pakhutkin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <DGoulet@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:50:31 -0400
The central principle that MySQL has followed in the past, FWIU, (and I =
hope they continue following) is that the database should be a dumb and =
fast storage container for data, nothing more. I've always been happy =
with this approach and really have no complaints about MySQL, neither =
while developing applications against it nor while administering it (I =
always only used InnoDB table format, the one that supports =
transactions, PITR, etc). It's very nice to keep all your code in the =
application layer and only worry about true RDBMS stuff in the database. =
The recent push on the part of MySQL to add stored procedure, etc, is =
them trying to appease the people that demand them because MySQL =
apparently is trying to compete against the big guys now. However, their =
real success and niche has always been small-medium databases powering =
web sites, and I'm not aware of any other product that can beat MySQL in =
that "market".
What you call "fixation on query speed" I would call a differentiating =
feature, something they decided to focus on from the start and have =
successfully used to gain interest and attract user base. The fact that =
they very wisely didn't attempt to become second Oracle, doesn't detract =
from their success and appeal for certain applications, in my opinion.
Max Pakhutkin=20
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Goulet, Dick
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 12:09 PM
To: Jared Still
Cc: ORACLE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: mysql - OT
Jared,
=20
It's taken them how long to agree to stored procedures? And how
long before they agree to look into native ACID compliance?? And how
much longer to agree that Point In Time recovery is important? The
point is that their fixated on query speed over everything else.
PostGreSql on the other hand is seriously into providing features &
functions that are part and parcel of Oracle and DB2. Basically since
they've already got the part that MySql is playing catching up on.
=20
Oh, and BTW since that's what part of this thread is all about: Most
employers don't pay us the big bucks for the everyday fun of keeping a
database up & running. Most decent sysadmins can do the same. What
they pay you for is making sure a recovery situation doesn't occur and
if it does to get the db back on line ASAP, like Yesterday. That's why
they pay out the big bucks, to those who can stand recovering a db with
the CIO & CEO looking over your shoulder while breathing fire down your
back. BTDT.
_____ =20
From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill@xxxxxxxxx]=20
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:14 AM
To: Goulet, Dick
Cc: RMohan@xxxxxxxxxxx; ORACLE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: mysql - OT
On 4/11/05, Goulet, Dick <DGoulet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:=20
I agree, PostGreSql is much superior to MySql. So I'd propose
changing
out LAMP (Linus, Apache, MySql, PHP) for LAPP(Linus, Apache,
PostGreSql,
PHP). Makes a lot more sense as it'll take MySql at least
another
decade to catch up.=3D20
=09
A decade? Sorry Dick, I don't think so. =20
They are moving fairly quickly on development, with fair amount of
funding
and support.
--=20
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
