Discussions

News: MySQL 5.0 Released

  1. MySQL 5.0 Released (63 messages)

    MySQL 5.0 has been released. This version adds a number of important features for MySQL, including:

    * Stored Procedures and SQL Functions to embed business logic in the database and improve performance;
    * Triggers to enforce complex business rules at the database level;
    * Views to ensure protection of sensitive information;
    * Cursors to allow easier database development and reference of large datasets;
    * Information Schema to provide easy access to metadata;
    * XA Distributed Transactions supports complex transactions across multiple databases in heterogeneous environments;
    * SQL Mode provides server-enforced data integrity for new and existing data;
    * New Federated and Archive Storage Engines -- MySQL's pluggable storage engine architecture allows greater flexibility, functionality and performance by making it easy to swap database engines in and out, based on users' application requirements;
    * New Migration Toolkit -- A new graphical toolkit that completely migrates all data and objects from Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Access and other database platforms to MySQL;
    * Instance Manager -- new management assistant that allows remote starting/stopping of any MySQL Server, as well as remote editing of configuration files, reading of error and query logs, and more;
    * Updated Connectors and Visual Tools -- new versions of MySQL's ODBC, Java and .NET database drivers are now available, along with updated versions of the MySQL Query Browser and MySQL Administrator.

    What features do you think will be the most useful? Would you consider migration to MySQL from another vendor (or not)?

    Threaded Messages (63)

  2. MySQL 5.0 Released[ Go to top ]

    Not a day too early!! This has been on my wish list for a *long* time now. Great!

    /N
  3. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    I'm wondering, PostgreSQL has had these and many other features for years. Why is MySQL still the most popular open-source database? PostgreSQL always felt and looked superior to me.
  4. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    I'm wondering, PostgreSQL has had these and many other features for years. Why is MySQL still the most popular open-source database? PostgreSQL always felt and looked superior to me.

    I always use PostgreSQL in preference. I think there is a general impression that MySQL is easier to set up and manage (especially when there are large numbers of multiple users), so it has tended to be the database for sites that allow (for example) PHP scripting.
  5. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    "Why not PostgreSQL" it's easy

    because PHP interact easy with MySQL.

    For most PHP programmers PHP+MySql is the solution.

    PostgreSql is much more Enterprise.
  6. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    Well, at least until recently PostgreSQL did not natively support Windows. Many developers (including me) develop on Windows even when the final target is a Unix system and it is nice to have a local database of the same type. That may have something to do with it.

    Anyway I've been waiting for this release, so it will be great to check it out.
  7. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    Well, at least until recently PostgreSQL did not natively support Windows. Many developers (including me) develop on Windows even when the final target is a Unix system and it is nice to have a local database of the same type. That may have something to do with it.Anyway I've been waiting for this release, so it will be great to check it out.
    I think this is exactly the reason MySQL took a big lead over PostgreSQL. A few years back, PostgreSQL was light years ahead of MySQL feature-wise. I know MSFT is not loved by many OS developers, but not providing support (until recently) for the most popular operating system out there was not a good strategic move. I never understood that decision.
  8. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    Check out PostgreSQL 8.0, it has a native support for win32 systems.

    http://www.postgresql.org/docs/whatsnew

    Harish
  9. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    We are also using PostgreSQL. However for some bigger database query performance is very bad (specially CPU is overloaded what have no logical explanation with big database). I don't sad that MySQL is better but Oracle definitely is. We could try MySQL for our product when all required functions like Transactions are ready. Moreover don't expect that MySQL will be stable before version 5.3 or 6.0 ;-).
  10. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    Hmm, my experience with PostgreSQL is similar to Oracle, some queries need special care when things like complex joins are involved. Proper analysis however always made it possible to get performance back, though it can take quite a bit of time, dedication and effort. PostgreSQL 8 got a lot better performance wise too.
  11. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    I think PostgreSQL is as good as Oracle for transaction processing, it is missing some "enterprise" features like materialized views, multitable clusters, partitions, bitmap indexes, but this RDBMS is in active development and I am sure this stuff will be implemented too. I hope MySQL 5 will be a good competitor for PostgreSQL as "enterprise" RDBMS too.
  12. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    Several teams in our company also found complex join performance to be an issue with PostgreSQL.

    What do you mean "When all required functions like Transactions are ready"? The InnoDB storage engine provides MySQL with a transaction-safe (ACID compliant) storage engine with commit, rollback, and crash recovery capabilities.
  13. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    Yes now they are ready (v 5.0). Before v5 MySQL was for me like a toy, good only for read only databases (no ACID support).
  14. So what is wrong with it?[ Go to top ]

    Just currious..
    Can anyone give me a list of why NOT to use MySQL5?

    I've been testing it for a while now and to me it seems great! The new tools makes it easy to maintain as well. A few bugs in thouse, but no big deal. You can allways pay $140 for a superb commersial tool that covers visual design (open scource under development).. still not too pricy ;)

    I know it dont have every feature Oracle have, but v5 closes the gap big time =)

    By the way when i think of MySQL, i think of InnoDB tables. Compare it to anything else i think would be unfair.

    -Erik
  15. So what is wrong with it?[ Go to top ]

    Just currious.. Can anyone give me a list of why NOT to use MySQL5?I've been testing it for a while now and to me it seems great! The new tools makes it easy to maintain as well. A few bugs in thouse, but no big deal. You can allways pay $140 for a superb commersial tool that covers visual design (open scource under development).. still not too pricy ;)I know it dont have every feature Oracle have, but v5 closes the gap big time =)By the way when i think of MySQL, i think of InnoDB tables. Compare it to anything else i think would be unfair.-Erik

    One of the main things I had a problem with in version 4 is that all blobs are loaded entirely into memory before being streamed out. This reduces its usefulness for large binary data storage. Then there are also a number of SQL oddities that I didn't really like, but that's debatable and I don't remember them atm ;-)
  16. I know it don't have every feature Oracle have, but v5 closes the gap big time =)By the way when i think of MySQL, i think of InnoDB tables. Compare it to anything else i think would be unfair.

    The matter is not just features but the performance also. I am not lawyer of Oracle or hate MySQL, in fact I am using it in my project too. My whole point is, I got 20% improvement in response time without any change of code for my application. All I did is just used Oracle 9i as database instead of MySQL. The schema was same and no performance was tuned for both of them. What do you say?
  17. So what is wrong with it?[ Go to top ]

    Just currious.. Can anyone give me a list of why NOT to use MySQL5?

    Because it was released today?
  18. So what is wrong with it?[ Go to top ]

    Just currious.. Can anyone give me a list of why NOT to use MySQL5?

    Number one on my list is that the MySQL group pursues a confusing and aggressive licensing strategy. For example, they make the claim that if you drop their JDBC driver into your app server, then you must open source your application that performs a JNDI lookup on that datasource if you wish to license under GPL.

    Such a claim contradicts my understanding of the GPL, and indeed is so counterintuitive that I could never be 100% confident that MySQL AB views me as being in compliance with their licensing requirements, even if I purchased the commercial license.
  19. So what is wrong with it?[ Go to top ]

    To name a few reasons why I would not consider MySql 'eterprice ready':

    XA support is rather limited at the moment:
    http://jroller.com/page/maximdim?entry=mysql_5_and_support_for

    I wonder how heavily XA was tested with different Transaction Managers as well?

    Infamous bug with large ResultSets probably still there: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=7698

    All above plus performance on complex joins should be enough to think twice before ditching Oracle.
  20. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    Hmm, my experience with PostgreSQL is similar to Oracle, some queries need special care when things like complex joins are involved. Proper analysis however always made it possible to get performance back, though it can take quite a bit of time, dedication and effort. PostgreSQL 8 got a lot better performance wise too.

    Complex Joins have been kind of a PostgreSQL/mySQL killer for us. In most cases it takes less time to get a more optimized query out of Oracle (as I would expect). In many cases when working with large data sets using querys that have many complex joins I have not been able to match Oracle's performance with PostgreSQL. Give mySQL 4.x too big a dataset and there is no way that you are going to match Oracle's performance under the same conditions. I will be interested to see if mySQL 5.0 holds up compaired to 4.x.

    That being said I love PostgreSQL and use it for most all my needs, and mySQL works great for developers that need to build data aware web sites, or provide back-end services for small to mid size applications.
  21. Postgresql & complex joins[ Go to top ]

    Increasing from_collapse_limit and join_collapse_limit in postgresql.conf can *greatly* increase performance on complex joins.

    A query of mine went from 10 minutes to less than a second by increasing join_collapse_limit.

    Postgresql is a very fast database if carefully tuned in my experience -- and I have managed to come up with some pretty interesting queries.

    But every application is different and there is no doubt in my mind that for a particular application Oracle is better suited than Postgresql, and vice versa.

    As for MySQL, it is a very simple equation for me:
    Postgresql fits my needs wonderfully and is free.
    MySQL could probably fit my needs but is not free for my company.

    Postgresql wins.
  22. Postgresql & complex joins[ Go to top ]

    True, PostgreSQL comes with extremely low defaults. IIRC, the shared query memory is limited to 8MB by default! After tuning the configuration to our needs, the performance skyrocketed indeed.
  23. Postgresql & complex joins[ Go to top ]

    Increasing from_collapse_limit and join_collapse_limit in postgresql.conf can *greatly* increase performance on complex joins.A query of mine went from 10 minutes to less than a second by increasing join_collapse_limit.

    Thanks for the advice, I had not tried adjusting the collapse_limits. I will have to go back and retweek some of the tests we were doing.
  24. Complex Joins have been kind of a PostgreSQL/mySQL killer for us. In most cases it takes less time to get a more optimized query out of Oracle (as I would expect). In many cases when working with large data sets using querys that have many complex joins I have not been able to match Oracle's performance with PostgreSQL.

    It would be great if you could share some specific scenarios where Oracle outperformed PostgreSQL. I think it would be interesting to compare the three free databases (PostgreSQL, mySQL and SQL Server Express) and the not-so-free Oracle :-)
  25. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    I think that MySQL got popular because PHP has no support for connection pools and MySQL has the fastest connection time, therefore it was and still is the only viable option for PHP.
    Personally I always thought about MySQL as a toy.
  26. PHP persistance connection[ Go to top ]

    I think that MySQL got popular because PHP has no support for connection pools and MySQL has the fastest connection time, therefore it was and still is the only viable option for PHP. Personally I always thought about MySQL as a toy.
    Persistance connection - mysql_pconnect
    http://www.php.net/mysql_pconnect
  27. Persistent != pooled[ Go to top ]

    Persistance connection - mysql_pconnecthttp://www.php.net/mysql_pconnect
    Persistent connections stay open at the end of PHP script execution. While this can certainly give you better performance, it's not at all the same as a connection pool. There is no pool manager, you cannot set upper or lower limits, each process can open an additional connection, etc. On a high-traffic site, using p_connect can actually kill your database by overloading it with too many opened connections.
  28. Persistent != pooled[ Go to top ]

    Thanks for your clarification. From my experience, mysql_pconnect is *very* buggy, php creates a new connection even the parameters are the same.

    BTW, you can limit the number of connections of a process by setting mysql.max_links
  29. Why not PostgreSQL[ Go to top ]

    One reason is because most web hosting companies support MySQL, not PostgreSQL and for those building websites in their "free time" for money this is what they are accustomed to using. Naturally, when those same individuals are working on projects (for their real job), and are given freedome to choose DB, they will lean towards what they are comfortable with: MySQL.
  30. MySQL Features and Such..[ Go to top ]

    Many people dismiss MySQL out of hand.. which is always interesting to me. Why would you toss out something just because you don't like some of its design or features? If you hammer nails most of the time, would you throw out a screw driver?

    MySQL, Postgresql, and many of the other database engines out there have alot of power these days. MySQL in the latest version has a pretty reasonable feature set.. and some nice additions like the federated tables and archive only tables. At a basic level, you can do pretty solid transaction handling and content serving from a MySQL database without any issues. Isn't this what 90%+ web sites do normally?

    Postgresql is also a great database, and I've personally used them both over the years with great success. I've looked at the MySQL MaxDB (SAP DB), Firebird, and others which seem to have nice features as well, but haven't needed to delve in too much.

    Personally I tend to use MySQL on quick dev jobs since its easily portable.. there are lots of management tools for users/administrators.. and it installs very quickly and easily. Generally thats true for Postgresql as well, though there are likely less general users who are familar with Postgresql as MySQL.

    To be fair, you should really skim through some of the details on the MySQL developer site to get a feel for the newer capabilities.. just as you should do the same for Postgresql (and perhaps Firebird, etc..).. and then select the best tool for your given job.

    (Of course, I say all that and I'm using Oracle 10g for a current gig.. like I said, best tool for the job.. its just not always free.. )
  31. Migration of database objects[ Go to top ]

    I wonder if the new migration toolkit migrates all the stored procedures from Oracle to MySQL.. or from SQL Server...
  32. When will it be production ready[ Go to top ]

    I'm curious how people go about determining when MySQL is production ready for their purposes? I wish there were a listing where we could see which major companies had put 5.0 into production. In our experience jumping on board a new MySQL release too early has caused us significant headache but I don't have a good recipe to determine what "too early" really means.
  33. Welcome MySQL 5.0[ Go to top ]

    Well, comparing MySQL with Oracle is not good in many ways. Oracle has set industry standards at par and MySQL is still to be tested as _enterprise_ ready. The time will tell the performance and mission critical project dependency. But anyways I was waiting for this feature list from many days. Hope it will work good for me in the same price tag FREE ;)
  34. MySQL and JMS[ Go to top ]

    With Oracle I can send a message from a trigger to an external client using JMS (and advanced queueing). Can I do this with MySQL? I find this handy to push out change notification vs polling.

    -Pete
  35. MySQL and JMS[ Go to top ]

    I'm not sure, but have you had a look under the hoods of Oracle AQ's JMS implementation? Not sure if it has changed, but last I looked, it was doing polling in the background via a JDBC connection ;-)

    Jin
  36. MySQL and JMS[ Go to top ]

    10g seems to do that but the older version didn't AFAICT. The upside is this could change again in the next version but My code won't.
  37. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    Firebird is an enterprise ready complete feature set transactional RDBMS.
    I used both MySQL and Firebird, and feature wise I would always prefer Firebird.
    It works natively on windows, linux, unix, has nice GUI, very good jdbc, and ADO.net drivers.

    Unfortunately it is almost unknown for wide audience.
    And i do not know why.
  38. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    Firebird is an enterprise ready complete feature set transactional RDBMS.I used both MySQL and Firebird, and feature wise I would always prefer Firebird.It works natively on windows, linux, unix, has nice GUI, very good jdbc, and ADO.net drivers.Unfortunately it is almost unknown for wide audience.And i do not know why.
    Simple answer, indices are limited to 250 bytes total per table! Now imagine unicode text stored in one column, and you're very limited in the length of your text.
  39. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    Simple answer, indices are limited to 250 bytes total per table! Now imagine unicode text stored in one column, and you're very limited in the length of your text.

    It is not 250 bytes per table. It is 250 bytes per index. When do you need a composite index over two 512 bytes varchar field ? Personally I never have.
  40. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    Back then in 2001 I've got terrific experience with Firebird. To name a few things
    - when you do "delete from xxx" you'd need to do "select count(*) from xxx" to actually delete records. And it does take a while, that select query
    - Firebird could't use indices in aggregates. "select ... from records where record_date=max(record_date)" can't use index on record_date while calculating max(...), so it has to search via entire table
    And it was slow, damn slow. Just porting my app from FB to Mysql got me performance improvement of 500% (schema with ~20 tables, some with up to several million records).
    So I wouldn't advise anyone using FB at all. There's no niche for it.
  41. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    Back then in 2001 I've got terrific experience with Firebird. ... So I wouldn't advise anyone using FB at all. There's no niche for it.

    So I assume this means Firebird hasn't evolved at all, in the 2001-2005 timeframe?
  42. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    To name a few things - when you do "delete from xxx" you'd need to do "select count(*) from xxx" to actually delete records. And it does take a while, that select query

    First of all, you don't need to. If you don't however the next query accessing the table will pay the price.

    True, it takes a while if the table is big. But do your applications rely on emptying tables with millions of records ? Mine don't for sure.
    - Firebird could't use indices in aggregates. "select ... from records where record_date=max(record_date)" can't use index on record_date while calculating max(...), so it has to search via entire tableAnd it was slow, damn slow.

    This is not true. MAX will use a descending index if available.
    So I wouldn't advise anyone using FB at all. There's no niche for it.

    Oh yes there is... There are hundreds of thousands of installations of Firebird/Interbase around the world, mainly for use with client/server delphi applications, because it used to come with the Delphi IDE, which was quite popular at one time.

    I'll also point out that the DELETE "problem" above is the price to pay for a very interesting architecture which is basically lock-free. And the product is very mature (1st version was released in '85).

    Another great thing about Firebird is the very lively and enthusiastic support community. And the development community is very active too.
  43. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    < There are hundreds of thousands of installations of Firebird/Interbase around the world, mainly for use with client/server delphi applications, because it used to come with the Delphi IDE, which was quite popular at one time.

    In 98 we had a terrible experience with Interbase(old name for Firebird): system was working on production for a about month and then DB got ‘frozen’. The unique architecture of the DB decided to do kind of garbage collection that lasted (if memory serves) for 16 or 18 hours. After that the DB was OK – not corrupted and ready to use, but 16-18 hours outage is the last thing I like to see.

    I am sure that Firebird has evolved and does not have the problem anymore, but I will never try using the product again.
  44. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    In 98 we had a terrible experience with Interbase(old name for Firebird): system was working on production for a about month and then DB got ‘frozen’. The unique architecture of the DB decided to do kind of garbage collection that lasted (if memory serves) for 16 or 18 hours. After that the DB was OK – not corrupted and ready to use, but 16-18 hours outage is the last thing I like to see.I am sure that Firebird has evolved and does not have the problem anymore, but I will never try using the product again.

    You could have had the same problem with PostgreSQL. In PostgreSQL it's called vacuuming. In Firebird it's called sweeping.
  45. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    You could have had the same problem with PostgreSQL. In PostgreSQL it's called vacuuming. In Firebird it's called sweeping.
    Quite possible, but in PostgresSQL vacuuming is the documented feature and can be started by manually. Although that accident was caused by a _bug_ in Interbase code that caused ‘leaking indexes’. It was fixed later…
  46. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    You could have had the same problem with PostgreSQL. In PostgreSQL it's called vacuuming. In Firebird it's called sweeping.
    Quite possible, but in PostgresSQL vacuuming is the documented feature and can be started by manually.

    Same thing in firebird/interbase... Sweep has been here and documented for 20 years.
    Although that accident was caused by a _bug_ in Interbase code that caused ‘leaking indexes’. It was fixed later…

    Never heard of that one, but interbase has suffered a lot while in the hands of Borland. Firebird has improved a lot upon it, fixing hundreds of bugs along the way...
  47. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    In 98 we had a terrible experience with Interbase(old name for Firebird): system was working on production for a about month and then DB got ‘frozen’. The unique architecture of the DB decided to do kind of garbage collection that lasted (if memory serves) for 16 or 18 hours. After that the DB was OK – not corrupted and ready to use, but 16-18 hours outage is the last thing I like to see.I am sure that Firebird has evolved and does not have the problem anymore, but I will never try using the product again.
    You could have had the same problem with PostgreSQL. In PostgreSQL it's called vacuuming. In Firebird it's called sweeping.
    This "unique architecture" a.k.a MVCC is used by most databases at this time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Version_Concurrency_Control
  48. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    This "unique architecture" a.k.a MVCC is used by most databases at this time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Version_Concurrency_Control

    Not really... PostgreSQL and Firebird are the only ones built from the ground up with this architecture.
  49. Why not Firebird ?[ Go to top ]

    I do not know how it is implemented in MySQL but it looks like InnoDB uses MVCC too.
  50. Why not Ingres?[ Go to top ]

    Computer Associates' once commercial offering is now open source. It's worth a look too http://opensource.ca.com/projects/ingres
  51. Does anybody have any thoughts on using BerkleyDB vs MySQL? Any pros and cons between them?

    Venkatt
  52. OOPs... meant to say Berkeley DB in the previous post. http://www.sleepycat.com/products/db.shtml
  53. OOPs... meant to say Berkeley DB[ Go to top ]

    Berkeley DB isn't a relational database in the MySQL sense - though it definitely has its uses (we use it on several projects).

    Cheers
    Ray
  54. MySQL prior InnoDB storage engine used BerkelyDB as storage manager. BerkleyDB is much lower level storage API for storing tuples of data. There is no tables or schemas just tuples, indexes on tuples and XA transactions.
  55. What about Enterprise DB?[ Go to top ]

    http://www.enterprisedb.com/

    Any experience out there?
  56. Take heed with MySQL 5.0 upgrade[ Go to top ]

    Unless you really need to upgrade for some of the new features, I'd advise against it, at least on windows. I successfully upgraded, but then trying to run it as a service was spotty. Also, it wouldn't take my backups of the 4.1 database schemas I had exported and I had issues with setting security from the instance configuration. Lastly, it didn't place nice with the MySQL Administration tool.

    For my purposes, 4.1 is stable and a good store for demos. I'd recommend staying there at least until they iron the wrinkles out.

    Cheers,
    Lou
  57. The Oracle Connection[ Go to top ]

    AFAIK you need to use the Innodb engine with MySQL for tx support, and Oracle now own the company that developed it. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the rate of future development of mysql. I wonder if oracle are looking to get into cheaper databases or if they will just slow the current rate of development and make upgrading easier?
  58. mysql[ Go to top ]

    MySQL 5.0 has been released. This version adds a number of important features for MySQL, including:* Stored Procedures and SQL Functions to embed business logic in the database and improve performance;* Triggers to enforce complex business rules at the database level;* Views to ensure protection of sensitive information;* Cursors to allow easier database development and reference of large datasets;* Information Schema to provide easy access to metadata;* XA Distributed Transactions supports complex transactions across multiple databases in heterogeneous environments;* SQL Mode provides server-enforced data integrity for new and existing data;* New Federated and Archive Storage Engines -- MySQL's pluggable storage engine architecture allows greater flexibility, functionality and performance by making it easy to swap database engines in and out, based on users' application requirements;* New Migration Toolkit -- A new graphical toolkit that completely migrates all data and objects from Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Access and other database platforms to MySQL;* Instance Manager -- new management assistant that allows remote starting/stopping of any MySQL Server, as well as remote editing of configuration files, reading of error and query logs, and more;* Updated Connectors and Visual Tools -- new versions of MySQL's ODBC, Java and .NET database drivers are now available, along with updated versions of the MySQL Query Browser and MySQL Administrator.What features do you think will be the most useful? Would you consider migration to MySQL from another vendor (or not)?
  59. UTF-8[ Go to top ]

    I'm not sure if Postgres supports UTF-8 character sets like MySQL does. (Great for storing international data sets).
  60. UTF-8[ Go to top ]

    It looks like support for UTF8 is in Postgres at least since 7.1
    http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.1/static/multibyte.html
  61. MySQL also freely distributes MAXDB - also known as SAPDB (ADABAS-D is it's heritage).

    A lot of SAP R/3 installations use it as the backend DB. It's JDBC drivers are also quite robust, fully ACID compliant, and has darned good referrential integrity support.
  62. MySQL 5.0 Released[ Go to top ]

    A lot of people said that MySQL cant be compared with Postgre or Oracle, because in the enterprise side they outperform MySQL, maybe is true maybe not.

    But i am sure that MySQL outperform any database on the web with the MyISAM engine, if you can insert 95000 records in one table in 16 seconds, then you may compete with MySQL but do it in a Intel Pentium II 233MHz and 128MB of RAM.

    For me is more that i could expect.

    Now i am going to see how MySQL 5.0 performance is in both, as an enterprise and a web database.
  63. But i am sure that MySQL outperform any database on the web with the MyISAM engine, if you can insert 95000 records in one table in 16 seconds, then you may compete with MySQL but do it in a Intel Pentium II 233MHz and 128MB of RAM.
    Why would you need to insert so many messages so fast? Doesn't MySQL support loaders (or import/export tools) to load data fast and you have to do insert? It's not unusual to see Oracle sqlloader loading millions of records into the table in comparable time (unrecoverable direct load)...oh, I forgot that it has to be on PII computer - too bad you can't buy them anymore, what a shame!

    Or may be you're building large OLTP system? That certainly would be a lot of fun with ISAM, especially if we recall that it doesn't support transactions.
  64. MySQL 5.0 Released[ Go to top ]

    With the MySQL 5.0 touting a broadening in the range of enterprise features they support, we are continuing to see a marked uptick in interest from our customers. DataDirect customers typically are a very database savvy audience and they are generally set a very high bar in terms of reliability requirements of both their connectivity components and quality of their underlying data store.

    To that end, MySQL 5.0 broadens the enterprise features at a new price-point for data stores. More developers will quickly realize the importance of the connectivity from the application to data store and DataDirect has already made plans to answer this call. We will ship MySQL 5.0 JDBC drivers in Q1 2006. Keep an eye on DataDirect.com for details.

    -Jonathan
    B: http://blogs.datadirect.com/jonathan_bruce