MySQL RANT was: PVR or DVR for Linux - NOT MythTV

[Matt Shields]

When you think about all the installations of mysql, most of them are
being used in the webhosting industry for small to medium sized
websites.  Most of them probably aren't bigger than 1/2 gig.  I think
our databases (and the 130G one is just one of a couple different
ones) provides a good example that these people can scale their
databases with mysql, if done right.  Sure postgresql, oracle, mssql
might have more features, tools, or have full implementations of sql,
but so far I haven't had any issues with things lacking.  It works
great for me and it scaled without any problems.  Like I said, why
change.

And no I wouldn't compare staying with mysql to staying with windows.
Linux's install base may not be as large as windows, but it has a
great community behind it which is why I choose linux.  I apply the
same logic to using mysql, it has a great community and abundant
resources so that's my choice.  I can say from experience I've had a
better community experience with mysql than with MS SQL or any
commercial product, maybe postgresql is better but I haven't followed
them.

-matt



On 6/5/07, Robert L Krawitz <rlk-FrUbXkNCsVf2fBVCVOL8/A at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>    Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:35:14 -0400
>    From: "Matt Shields" <mattboston-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
>
>    There's something to be said for such a large install base that
>    finding answers and software to use with it is a huge plus.
>
>    I can also attest to the performance my databases are over 130G and
>    perform nice and fast.  I also haven't used postgresql, but why
>    change when mysql works fine for me.
>
> Databases are somewhat funny beasts -- they're all in principle
> equivalent (at least ones that use SQL), but in practice there's a lot
> of difference between databases in terms of tools, performance
> characteristics (not just "performance"), support, system
> requirements, ability to handle certain cases, and so forth.  Not
> everyone needs a full RDBMS, but people (and applications) who do need
> one tend to rely very heavily on it.
>
> My recollection is that MySQL does not fully implement SQL, although I
> don't remember exactly what it is that's missing.  If you need that
> functionality it's probably a deal breaker; if not, you may not care.
>
> 130 GB isn't that big of a database, and more importantly, it's a
> matter of exactly what you're doing.  If you're just extracting
> properly indexed rows from a single table with no joins then any
> database should perform well (and you don't really need an RDBMS for
> that kind of application anyway).  But not every application is that
> simple.
>
>    On 6/5/07, Eric C <eric-yrHdaQSNc4gdnm+yROfE0A at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>    > mark,
>    > i've kind of followed the LAMP.  it's what i heard
>    > others talk about.  i have no experience with
>    > PostgreSQL.  it may  be a zillion times better, i
>    > don't know.  but i do know what MySQL is.  i've used
>    > on windos an linux.  easy to install, easy to
>    > generally understand to a database noob.  the command
>    > line isn't difficult and i'm not a command line junky.
>    >  there's also cross platform GUIs that work and again
>    > are easy to understand.  i've been able to manipulate
>    > several million row tables on a regular pc once i got
>    > the indexes right.  their docs are pretty good and
>    > their mailing list is friendly and helpful.  it was
>    > really an enjoyable experience to use MySQL and made
>    > me look sharp infront of the boss.  i can't refute
>    > anything you've said as i'm no guru, but on a
>    > subjective level   - with smaller databases MySQL
>    > works great.  i also have a couple of websites that
>    > use MySQL and access them with phpmyadmin, which is
>    > also easy to use and works.  now would i have problems
>    > if i had several million hits a day?  i don't know, i
>    > hope to find out!  if PostgreSQL fit's my needs, i'll
>    > jump ship.  but for now MySQL is fine.
>    >
>    > so my point is MySQL can be a good app for some people
>    > some of the time.
>    >
>    >
>    > "I don't want to start a flame war..."
>    > yes u do.  it might be fun!
>    >
>    > "I don't like the organization and I don't like the
>    > software. I don't like the bogus benchmarks they use."
>    > that's interesting.  i don't like cheating.  this
>    > would greatly lower my opinion of them if true.  do
>    > you have examples?
>    >
>    > "Almost every argument about using MySQL despite its
>    > suckage are the same arguments for using Windows. They
>    > are false and easily refuted."
>    > oh god, don't compare it to M$.  MySQL is free.  M$ is
>    > a ~$150 virus catcher.
>    >
>    > "If a program chooses to only use MySQL, I can only
>    > assume the developers are clueless about databases in
>    > general and that does not bode well for the quality of
>    > their code."
>    > are you saying we can not find one program that uses
>    > only MySQL that doesn't have sucky code?  i'm not
>    > fully qualified to comment on the quality of other's
>    > code but this seems unlikely.  maybe somebody closer
>    > to your level of ability will speak up.
>    >
>    > - eric c.
>    >
>    > --
>    > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>    > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>    > believed to be clean.
>    >
>    > _______________________________________________
>    > Discuss mailing list
>    > Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
>    > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>    >
>
>    --
>    This message has been scanned for viruses and
>    dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>    believed to be clean.
>
>    _______________________________________________
>    Discuss mailing list
>    Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
>    http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.