The community edition is free, and you get InnoDB and MyISAM with it.
Basically the community edition lags a few dot releases behind the
enterprise edition but is more or less the same product.
Simon
On 30 Oct 2007, at 03:50, Cheong Hee (Datasonic) wrote:
Some may not aware that MYSQL is
For MySQL Pro, each commercial license costs US$695
Cheers
Cheong Hee
- Original Message -
From: Simon McLean
To: Cheong Hee (Datasonic)
Cc: webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Database choices
The community edition
(Datasonic)
Cc: webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Database choices
The community edition is free, and you get InnoDB and MyISAM with
it. Basically the community edition lags a few dot releases behind
the enterprise edition but is more or less
New licensing al-
lows for free deployment of WebObjects applications.
I missed this completely ... That's pretty huge, and definitely worth
looking more into. Apologies to OpenBase!
ms ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be
We use FrontBase for an application that does mostly large, complex queries
(aggregating data, etc). A few things about FrontBase have bothered me and
made me consider switching to Postgres:
- The database process crashes sometimes due to various queries that it
doesn't like
- Left join
On 29.10.2007, at 19:52, Mike Schrag wrote:
in FB, you might want to take a look at:
OPTIMIZE DATABASE;
OPTIMIZE DISK ZONE disk zone name | DEFAULT;
(see Page 115 of the FB User Guide for more info) ... Maybe will help?
As far as I understood Geert, this will not reclaim space on disk.
On Oct 30, 2007, at 7:31 AM, John Huss wrote:
We use FrontBase for an application that does mostly large, complex
queries (aggregating data, etc). A few things about FrontBase have
bothered me and made me consider switching to Postgres:
- The database process crashes sometimes due to
On 30.10.2007, at 11:01, Chuck Hill wrote:
- OR performance is bad
Yes, something odd is going on there.
If you stay inside one column with your or its using an index, if
you use two different columns in an or, it won't. E.g.:
select * from foo where a = 'bar' or a = 'bas';
will use an
For example, the FrontBase mail list archive has this message:
Subject: [RESOLVED] Re: Optimization/Caching/Indexing how-to
The order of the columns in the composite index definition is very important
for your case.
If you want the optimal performance, you need to put the timestamp column
last
But to be fair: if you run into that kind of problem, the guys at
FrontBase really want to help you and normally they find a way
quickly.
Agreed ... FrontBase support is great.
ms
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
* Chuck Hill [2007/10/29 01:31 PM -0700] wrote:
It is easy to install and administer and has pretty tools. But it is
not free, not SQL92 standard, and doesn't have (last time I used it)
multiple column indexes.
One choice that hasn't been mentioned, and is perhaps worth exploring
given the
If you're going to use MySQL with WebObjects in a production
environment, make sure to do the following:
- create all your tables with InnoDB engine support - the default
MyISAM support is non-transactional
- make sure to create all your tables with the right charset and
collation
If I understand what they are saying / what the situation is, then
that seems like a reasonable limitation on using indexes for
optimization.
Chuck
On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:42 AM, John Huss wrote:
For example, the FrontBase mail list archive has this message:
Subject: [RESOLVED] Re:
WebObjects
OpenBase 10 includes a new plugin and WO qualifier objects, allowing
you to easily
perform complex sub-queries inside your WebObjects applications.
Schema synchroni-
zation functions allow users to easily manage WebObjects schemas.
New licensing al-
lows for free deployment of
Is OB 10 free for any of the versions for WO deployment, or is this
license only for specific versions (like the Solo version or
something)?
Our mail server is being super slow, btw ... So I'm not just retarded
and asking already-answered questions 15 minutes later :)
ms
i don't think it's your mail server mike - i've also been getting
jumbled up messages from the wo-dev list for the past day or so...
simon
On 30 Oct 2007, at 22:12, Mike Schrag wrote:
Is OB 10 free for any of the versions for WO deployment, or is
this license only for specific versions
Hi Mike,
The solo license is for single server local-access. It should work
with any version of WO, not sure about 5.4 yet.
http://www.openbase.com/home-News-detail.1060.html
Gordon
On 30-Oct-07, at 5:42 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
WebObjects
OpenBase 10 includes a new plugin and WO qualifier
On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:38 PM, Gordon Belray wrote:
The solo license is for single server local-access. It should work
with any version of WO, not sure about 5.4 yet.
It worked fine for me with WO 5.4.
___
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Using Leopard Eclipse WOLips - which is the database of choice. I
have heard postgres is the best of the opensource ones. But which one
works best with replacement tool for EOModeler?
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be
Hi!
I don't understand your question. WOLips has nothing to do with
the DB. As long as you have the correct plugin installed, WOLips will
be able to handle SQL generation for any DB.
You have a lot of criteria to base your decision, but in what
relates to WO and WOLips, it's just a
I prefer FrontBase ... It's trivial to setup, runs very well, and it's
free. MySQL and PostgreSQL are obvious other choices as well.
ms
On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Ken Foust wrote:
Using Leopard Eclipse WOLips - which is the database of choice.
I have heard postgres is the best of
I'll stick up for MySQL!
You can be up and running in minutes, it has a simple admin app and
you can still get under the hood and tinker to the n'th degree if you
really want to.
Simon
On 29 Oct 2007, at 17:16, Chuck Hill wrote:
I am with Mike on this. If you just need free, FrontBase
I am with Mike on this. If you just need free, FrontBase is hard to
beat. If you must have open source, PostgreSQL. MySQL has some nice
features, but... I dunno, it is still MySQLToy to me.
Chuck
On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
I prefer FrontBase ... It's trivial to
You know, I have thought this same thing of MySQL for years, but I
think it's because I'm evaluating it based on its feature set from
1998 and not giving it a fair shake. I've read a lot of stories on,
for instance, highavailability.com about huge sites that use it. I'm
not too keen on
Finally, I have zero criticsm for FrontBase or PostqreSQL just
have never had a need to go there yet although, I am planning
to give serious playtime to both someday soon when I get time
especially after all the positive comments about Frontbase and
PostgreSQL here in the
I'm not too keen on the restriction that clustering is in-memory only
I agree with this. You also need a minimum 3 servers to have a true
cluster so it becomes incredibly expensive because you need mountains
of RAM in each server.
But if you are just looking for data security/back-up etc
Same here. Until recently I didn't care about MySQL at all, but after
a year of running a clustered installation on a *very* active site
that previously ran on Oracle, I'd say it is a very good choice...
Although the site is heavily skewed towards reads. Not sure how well
MySQL behaves
I am sure that you can make it go, but other than clustering, why
bother? If you don't need that it seems like a lot of configuration
work, research, etc. for what FrontBase gives you with a single
click installer.
Chuck
On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
You know, I have
Tcsh, tcsh MySQLToy! I must be a kid then :-p
Seriously ... it is garbage using *DEFAULT* MyISAM with WebObjects,
but with *InnoDB transactional engine*, I find it quite troublefree.
Requires one to look up the manual and decide what innodb settings
they need to set in /my.cnf,
Le 07-10-29 à 14:06, Mike Schrag a écrit :
Finally, I have zero criticsm for FrontBase or PostqreSQL
just have never had a need to go there yet although, I am
planning to give serious playtime to both someday soon when I get
time especially after all the positive comments
I suspect they very likely have compelling performance numbers, but I
haven't had time to actually run tests with our real databases on
it ... There are graphical MySQL front-ends (whereas FB's is fine, but
sort of passable), and honestly there are pkg installs of it also at
this point, so
On 29 Oct 2007, at 16:52, Mike Schrag wrote:
I prefer FrontBase ... It's trivial to setup, runs very well, and
it's free. MySQL and PostgreSQL are obvious other choices as well.
OpenBase is another obvious choice. One that seems to be somewhat
ignored on this list, for no obvious
The reason I don't recommend OpenBase is that there are several very
capable free alternatives, but everyone who uses it seems to be very
happy with it. I've heard the GUI tools on OpenBase are a lot better
than FB's.
ms
On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:46 PM, Paul Lynch wrote:
On 29 Oct 2007,
It does appear that MySQL has come along way. We're actually looking
at migrating to MySQL from our current OpenBase install for
performance issues. Don't really hear much about OpenBase and WO
these days ... does anyone still use it in production environments?
Michael.
On 29-Oct-07, at
WRT MySQL, configuring the /etc/my.cnf file for good InnoDB
performance is trivial enough. The my.cnf is simply a way of putting
all command line launch options in a file actually the format is
identical to our beloved WebObjects Properties file. The options are
very well documented in
We use Openbase in several of our systems. We are very satisfied with
it, great support.
Cheers,
\o/ Nilton Lessa, Moleque de Idéias Educação e Tecnologia Ltda
| Phone: 55-21-2710-0178 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ \ http://www.moleque.com.br
On 29/10/2007, at 16:07, Michael Halliday
On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Paul Lynch wrote:
On 29 Oct 2007, at 16:52, Mike Schrag wrote:
I prefer FrontBase ... It's trivial to setup, runs very well, and
it's free. MySQL and PostgreSQL are obvious other choices as well.
OpenBase is another obvious choice. One that seems to be
Hello;
Are there not problems still with deferred referential-integrity
checking in the MySQL database? I also seem to end up with
OutOfMemory's in long batch-processing runs that completely vanished
when I switched a system to Postgres.
cheers.
___
Andrew Lindesay
technology :
On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
I suspect they very likely have compelling performance numbers, but
I haven't had time to actually run tests with our real databases on
it ...
The best database for a particular application really seems to depend
on the size of the
It looks like Frontbase is something interesting to look at:)
Actually I'm setting up a new server for test purpose so I'll be
happy to try something else than MySQL.
What are the tools available like CocoaMySQL but for Frontbase? GUI
front end I mean:) Frontbase manager?
Is there any
I've been using OpenBase since I began doing WO development. That's
not long but I can say that I have been happy with it. If you're in a
position where a commercial product is an option then I think they
provide some unique and forward-thnking features. It installs with
some cool stored
FrontBaseManager is the GUI tool for FrontBase ... It works fine for
most operations, but it's not great. There's also the Java version of
it (which I don't use FrontBaseJManager, I think is the name). I
don't know if they're explicitly certified on Leopard, but I have not
had any
MySQL is a lot better than it was 10 years ago, but it still has a
habit of playing fast and loose with certain types of input
validation, silently discarding or changing certain types of data and
allowing invalid queries. It still has a brain damaged query
optimiser and the query
On Oct 29, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Q wrote:
MySQL is a lot better than it was 10 years ago, but it still has a
habit of playing fast and loose with certain types of input
validation, silently discarding or changing certain types of data
and allowing invalid queries. It still has a brain
+ has vacuum full, to shrink the footprint of the db on disk
in FB, you might want to take a look at:
OPTIMIZE DATABASE;
OPTIMIZE DISK ZONE disk zone name | DEFAULT;
(see Page 115 of the FB User Guide for more info) ... Maybe will help?
+ query planner analysis tools (explain analyze select
On 29.10.2007, at 17:01, Q wrote:
Until postgresql gets a solid clustering solution, frontbase comes
out in front in my opinion.
Depends a bit on your workload and your requirements.
Where PostgreSQL shines:
+ insert speed
+ indexing speed (helps inserting)
+ has vacuum full, to shrink the
is slightly more expensive. FrontBase, AFAIK,
is still FOC for all licenses including Enterprise version.
Cheers
Cheong Hee
--
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:27:29 -0400
From: Kieran Kelleher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Database choices
To: Mike Schrag [EMAIL
On Oct 29, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
The reason I don't recommend OpenBase is that there are several very
capable free alternatives, but everyone who uses it seems to be very
happy with it. I've heard the GUI tools on OpenBase are a lot better
than FB's.
The following is from the
On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Paul Lynch wrote:
I prefer FrontBase ... It's trivial to setup, runs very well, and
it's free. MySQL and PostgreSQL are obvious other choices as well.
OpenBase is another obvious choice. One that seems to be somewhat
ignored on this list, for no obvious reason.
I have been using FB since it was in beta, and never ever had a
single problem. It is my dev base of choice.
It is very fast, scales very well; and I like the slick UI and the
sql92 compliance. For those whom might have the need, the FB support
is the most responsive I've ever seen.
On 10/29/07, Guido Neitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29.10.2007, at 12:38, Pascal Robert wrote:
And for MySQL: as long as they don't change their policy and not do
API changes or major changes to the behaviour of the system inside a
minor version tree (so you can't get updates inside the
On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:37 PM, Ricardo Parada wrote:
On Oct 29, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
The reason I don't recommend OpenBase is that there are several very
capable free alternatives, but everyone who uses it seems to be very
happy with it. I've heard the GUI tools on OpenBase
On Oct 29, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Michael Halliday wrote:
It does appear that MySQL has come along way. We're actually looking
at migrating to MySQL from our current OpenBase install for
performance issues. Don't really hear much about OpenBase and WO
these days ... does anyone still use it in
53 matches
Mail list logo
