LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > LinuxQuestions.org > 2005 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards
User Name
Password
2005 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards This forum is for the 2005 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2005. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends March 6th.

Notices

View Poll Results: Database of the Year
MySQL 660 62.98%
PostgreSQL 168 16.03%
Firebird 83 7.92%
Oracle 44 4.20%
Sybase 4 0.38%
DB2 16 1.53%
Berkley DB 10 0.95%
sqlite 59 5.63%
InnoDB 1 0.10%
EnterpriseDB 3 0.29%
Voters: 1048. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2006, 12:58 PM   #76
jonniebigodes
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Posts: 42

Rep: Reputation: 15

mysql of course....i've worked with it in windows, and now moved to a linux box...and it keeps getting better :P
man....i love mysql
 
Old 03-01-2006, 03:57 PM   #77
hspc
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Egypt
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9

Rep: Reputation: 0
MySQL
I'll try to depend more on it on linux and windows .. Vesions 5.0+ are great.

Last edited by hspc; 03-01-2006 at 03:58 PM.
 
Old 03-01-2006, 09:35 PM   #78
Spudz76
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
What? Just use CSV text files, who needs fancy database software...



Just kidding. MySQL rocks.
 
Old 03-02-2006, 12:00 AM   #79
westman
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: SLES, RH9
Posts: 15

Rep: Reputation: 0
DaTabase of the year????
Mysql is the best. Maybe it's the simplest db to manage and administer.... My vote for MYSQL!
 
Old 03-02-2006, 01:04 AM   #80
decibel
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudz76
What? Just use CSV text files, who needs fancy database software...

Just kidding. MySQL rocks.
It's ironic that you make fun of flat files and then promote MySQL, because MySQL is nothing more than a SQL interface to the filesystem. It doesn't support any of the basic features that make a database useful. Even if you try to create an ACID database, there's an entire laundry list of items just waiting to fail. And when they do fail, you don't even get notice that it's happened.

If you're not happy with using CSV files, DON'T USE MYSQL.
 
Old 03-02-2006, 01:31 AM   #81
hspc
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Egypt
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by decibel
It doesn't support any of the basic features that make a database useful.

Examples?
 
Old 03-02-2006, 01:37 AM   #82
aabfm
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Portugal
Distribution: Fedora, Ubuntu, Knoppix
Posts: 63

Rep: Reputation: 15
Database of the year

MySQL for shure!!!
 
Old 03-02-2006, 08:13 AM   #83
pvaino
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ottawa
Distribution: Red Hat 9, Debian, Gentoo
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
MySQL is super for small applications and easily expandable. Ideal in a small organization.
 
Old 03-02-2006, 10:17 AM   #84
decibel
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by hspc

Examples?
For starters, the default table type isn't ACID. This means you have absolutely no way to safely work on more than one piece of data at a time. But worse that that, they *hide* that from you. For example, you can define refferential integrity on a MyISAM table without errer. The database just silently ignores it. And even when you try and create a much safer InnoDB table, if there's some reason the database can't do that instead of throwing an error it just silently creates a MyISAM one for you.

Another fun one: MySQL thinks 'Feb 31' is a valid date. And that 5/0 is NULL and not an error. Yes, in 5.0 you can set strict mode to fix some of that stupidity, but then you have to make sure it's set, and I believe there's also restrictions on what table types you can use it with.

The list goes on and on. Google for 'MySQL gotchas' sometime.

What it boils down to is that MySQL development is driven by marketing. They don't care one wit about implimenting a feature correctly, so long as they have something that allows them to say "yeah, we do that!", even if there's 3 dozen strings attached. Take their 'clustering' for example... it only works if *all your data fits in memory*. If everything fits in memory, what's the point of clustering?

Sadly, I bet that most folks who tout MySQL do so only because they don't have experience developing anything where data integrity is important, or where you need to be able to scale. Wikipedia is a good example... based on the data they've got posted about their hit rates they should be able to drive they entire site off a single PostgreSQL database, instead of the 7 MySQL servers they're using. Livejournal is a more telling example... rather than switch to a more scaleable database when they ran into MySQL's limitations, they started piling on bandaid after bandaid. Based on yesterdays stats of about 300,000 posts, that's 3.5 TPS, which is not a very hard target to hit, even with the large amount of reads they're doing. But, because no one involved in the creation of the site had any real database experience they decided that they needed to create this elaborate clustering framework that's taken a huge amount of effort to make work.

Examples like that are why I'm so disappointed with MySQL: it paints itself as being able to do 'everything', when in fact it is very difficult to scale it up, and it promotes bad coding practices. Compare this to SQLite: it's creator is very forthcomming about it's limitations, and where it does and doesn't make sense to use it. Same thing with the PostgreSQL community. Of course, since both projects strive to adhere to ANSI SQL (unlike MySQL), it's fairly easy to migrate from SQLite to PostgreSQL should your needs change.

BTW, I think it's rather telling that everyone who's promoted MySQL in this thread so far has said nothing more than "MySQL rocks!", which tells people absolutely nothing.
 
Old 03-02-2006, 10:19 AM   #85
decibel
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvaino
MySQL is super for small applications and easily expandable. Ideal in a small organization.
Do you have experience scaling it up? Everything I've heard is that it's very difficult to do.
 
Old 03-02-2006, 11:08 AM   #86
MacNugget
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: 0
"First" isn't "Best" by any stretch. . .

There's absolutely no denying that MySQL is a tremendously popular database within the open source community. There are very nearly as many MySQL HOWTOs, FAQs, and articles available on the internet as there are MySQL users. For an open source developer or administrator who is looking in to databases for the first time they are certainly going to encounter MySQL and benefit from the vast amount of user and enthusiast-generated information out there.

Is it any wonder that for most people, MySQL is their first exposure to the world of databases? It's precisely this dynamic that leads to such insightful comments in this thread as:

Quote:
Originally Posted by anticapitalista
MySQL as I haven't learnt anything else yet.
And here we have, neatly encapsulated, the current state of opinion on databases in the open source universe. There are literally thousands of developers who discovered MySQL concurrent with their discovery of databases in general and have been satisfied enough to never look beyond MySQL. In their eyes, MySQL is fantastic for all the reasons that databases are fantastic (and databases are, to be sure). If you've never used anything other than MySQL, "MySQL is fantastic because it's a database". This is not at all the same thing as saying "MySQL is a fantastic database" (and it isn't, to be sure).

About a zillion years ago when I'd first turned 16 and got my driver's license I picked up a beater car for a few hundred dollars. It was a total piece of junk, more "rust" colored than it was the "blue" color denoted on the registration. By any rational measure, it was a terrible, terrible car. Did I love it? You bet. It was my first car and I loved it because it represented freedom, and mobility, and maturity to me. Since it was my only experience with owning a car, I didn't really think about all the little issues and problems it caused. For me, having to top it off with oil every week was just part of owning a car. I didn't know what it was like to own a car where the driver's side door didn't stick locked sometimes, requiring me to get in on the other side and slide across. None of those things got in the way of my love for the car, because owning a car is really pretty awesome compared to not owning a car.

So it goes for those poor MySQL users who have never ventured on to explore other database options. Daily they tolerate annoyances and misbehaviors that would make any experienced developer flee for the hills. They have no idea that there are freer, more powerful, more useful, and less awful databases out there. They have no idea how absolutely horrid it is to have to put up with a database that will, for example, happily accept "February 31st" as a date without warning or rejection (to use an example mentioned elsewhere in this discussion).

I haven't seen anyone denying that databases are great. They are. If MySQL is your first exposure to databases, then it is unfairly getting the benefit of any enthusiasm and energy which is more properly coming from databases in general, though.

Honestly, for all you folks who voted for MySQL in this poll without every having actually used the other poll options -- how do you justify that vote? How can you assert that MySQL is the best when it's the only thing you've used? Without perspective, how do you know?

Windows 98 capably demonstrates to us that mere popularity is not a useful measure by which quality can be determined. I have no interest in running the most popular operating system, using the most popular database, or driving the most popular car. "Most popular" doesn't imply "best" and I'd hate to sell myself and my work short by choosing based on popularity.

By any technical, licensing, or aesthetic measure, PostgreSQL is hands-down superior to MySQL. For edge cases (at either extreme), neither MySQL or PostgreSQL are the best choice and you'd be better off looking at something like SQLite or Oracle. Even if you disagree with this, there's little argument that it's impossible to know what's best if you've only used one option.
 
Old 03-02-2006, 11:34 AM   #87
Tinkster
Moderator
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: in a fallen world
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 22,986
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 880Reputation: 880Reputation: 880Reputation: 880Reputation: 880Reputation: 880Reputation: 880
Welcome to LQ, MacNugget,

And nice introductory post ;}


Cheers,
Tink
 
Old 03-04-2006, 10:11 AM   #88
jcs32
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Distribution: suse, gentoo
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
MySQL and PGSQL

Comparing the two, I guess PGSQL is more powerful (and complete) from the SQL point of view, also probably more inviting to actually edit the code (although I haven't needed that so far).
MySQL (although a less complete implementation of everything one might want from an RDBMS) is probably faster, although this topic is complex as so many different table types and combinations of those are possible, some non-transactional. For small but still stransactional applications I would still go for MySQL, also haven't tried the MySQL clusters and MaxDB so far.
 
Old 03-04-2006, 10:23 AM   #89
decibel
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcs32
Comparing the two, I guess PGSQL is more powerful (and complete) from the SQL point of view, also probably more inviting to actually edit the code (although I haven't needed that so far).
MySQL (although a less complete implementation of everything one might want from an RDBMS) is probably faster, although this topic is complex as so many different table types and combinations of those are possible, some non-transactional. For small but still stransactional applications I would still go for MySQL, also haven't tried the MySQL clusters and MaxDB so far.
In the rare cases where MySQL is faster, you'd almost certainly be better off with something like BDB or SQLite anyway. Of more importance, it's far easier to scale PostgreSQL up than it is to scale MySQL. I posted earlier about wikipedia, I suspect they could go from their current 7 mysql servers to a single PostgreSQL server, or 2 at most.

And before someone starts arguing "Well, lots of small little sites don't need to scale"... I'm sure wikipedia probably thought that at first. I know that livejournal did. Now they're essentially stuck with quite a mess.

Also, to address your transactional point, MySQL isn't really any faster than PostgreSQL when using InnoDB (and of course without it you aren't transactional. Heck, you're not always transactional even with it.)

So, it really confuses me why people would go with MySQL when PostgreSQL would get the job done just as well and provide far more room for expansion. And you'd be much closer to standard SQL. And you'd be ACID. And 'Feb 31' wouldn't be a valid date. Etc., etc.

Also, I keep mentioning PostgreSQL only because I haven't really played with the other free databases; it's entirely possible that Firebird would scale just as well.
 
Old 03-04-2006, 10:35 AM   #90
jcs32
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Distribution: suse, gentoo
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
probably

Admittedly, I'm not a DB specialist and as MacNugget pointed out earlier, have too little experience with anything other than MySQL (actually only an old Sybase 11.x, which probably made me deny the existence of other open sourced DBs than MysQL out of fear they might be similar to that piece of outdated code . I guess the point is taken, will probably have another look at PGSQL (concerning open source) and one of Sybase ASA or ASE. (I think Oracle is just too overwhelming if you don't spend a major part of your time designing/implementing/interfacing DBs).
 
  


Reply

Tags
members choice awards


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Snort database: Closing connection to database "" Homer Glemkin Linux - Security 2 07-14-2005 06:58 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:00 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration