Jay, Thanks, I got the answer.
You will be surprised how difficult it will be to implement some of these plugins. For example, take view query rewrite. In case of views, it has to deal with SQL privileges and table level locks. Rewrite clearly adds recursion. Therefore, a lot of upward thinking needs to go into plugin API designs. In general, query rewrite is one of the most important steps in query processing, and MySQL certainly does a very poor job in it, especially in comparison with Postgres, DB2, or Oracle. By the way, removing views was done very inconsistently. Views are very similar to "derived tables" in most respects, and in MySQL, view processing and derived table processing share 80% of the code. Yet, derived tables remain in Drizzle. How is merging or materializing derived tables different from merging or materializing views? Regards, Alex Esterkin On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Alex Esterkin wrote: > > Jim, > > > > +1 and two enthusiastic thumbs up. > > > > However, quoted identifiers is a minor issue compared to prior SQL > standard > > feature amputations. The Drizzle wiki page list the following SQL > features > > as already removed: > > > > - Views > > - Triggers > > - Prepared Statements > > - Stored Procedures > > > > What is the benefit of removing these features? > > Hi! > > Did Monty and Brian provide a satisfactory answer to your question, > Alex? Basically, it boils down to pushing features out into the plugin > ecosystem instead of having everything in the kernel.. > > Cheers! > > Jay > > > Regards, > > Alex Esterkin > > > > On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Jim Starkey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> At the risk of boring everyone to death, I'd like to explain a bit more > >> about why I continue to push a standard I don't like. > >> > >> In the computer world, like many others, there comes a time where a > >> technology is good enough. At that point, something better has a very > high > >> bar to acceptance. Yes, this leads to less than optimal standards, but > a > >> good enough standard allows folks to concentrate on newer and more > >> interesting stuff. Lotus 1-2-3 was good, but not good enough. Excel, > on > >> the other hand, is widely regarded as good enough, sufficiently good > that > >> competing against it is pointless. X-11 is another example. X-10 > wasn't > >> good enough, X-11 is. Sun's News and display postscript were both > better > >> than X-11, but not sufficiently better to bother with. > >> > >> When the marketplace speaks, one should either listen or prepare for a > life > >> a deep frustration. > >> > >> SQL is clearly good enough. It had all sorts of competitors, all of > which > >> are nearly forgotten. SQL won more or less fair and square -- there > were > >> multiple implementations of SQL, mostly incompatible, a couple of > >> implementations of QUEL, a couple of implementations of the > DEC/Interbase > >> language, and any number of forgotten one-offs. > >> > >> Due to pressure from users, the various SQL implementations have > gradually > >> coalesced around an official standard. The process was ugly and rigged, > but > >> the world spoke very clearly that it wanted a standard database > language, > >> and those products that wished to ignore the standard would be punished. > >> > >> MySQL has an idea that it sets it own standard. This is not only > >> horseshit, but blatantly anti-democratic horseshit. It is the same > >> horseshit that Oracle and Ingres tried to pull with non-standard SQL and > >> QUEL -- languages that they controlled and the rest of the world be > damned. > >> > >> The MySQL attitude toward SQL is stupid, ignorant, short sighted, > arrogant, > >> and just plain wrong. Interoperability with the rest of the world is > >> important because it lets people use database software to solve one set > of > >> problems so they can concentrate on other sets of problems. Throwing > >> roadblocks in front of users that both impede acceptance of drizzle or > MySQL > >> and, not incidentally, prevent users from converting to other systems, > is > >> profoundly unfortunate. > >> > >> So, drizzle, join the world or thumb your nose at it and go your own > way. > >> But please don't proclaim out of one side of your mouth that you are a > SQL > >> database system and out the other that you aren't willing to go beyond > lip > >> service to the standard. > >> > >> When you have semantics beyond the standard, by all means go your own > way. > >> Innovation should not be stifled by a standard. But if the only > motivation > >> for divergence from the standard is to show the world that you're > smarter > >> than everyone else (or, in the case of MySQL, too dumb to fix it), give > it > >> up and get a life. > >> > >> Let the counter-rants begin. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jim Starkey > >> President, NimbusDB, Inc. > >> 978 526-1376 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Mailing list: > >> https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > <https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > >> Post to : [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe : > >> https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > <https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkn/CNUACgkQ2upbWsB4UtFLJACdHyNMLbcOZ9YpKOuYuG2fGx+9 > wTwAnjXY/tJAOBGHUaz/A8kBZ08nT/Tk > =PUrC > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
