At 05:36 PM 9/02/2000 +1100, Anthony Rumble wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>> > I've read about MySQL in linux journal & on the MySQL website,
>> > and its benchmarks are great, and it sounded better than
>> PostGresSQL,
>> > UNTIL I saw "MySQL does not support transactions".
>> >
>> > IMHO if it does not support transactions, it is NOT a database.
>>
>> Say it loud! Say it proud!
>>
>> I've heard someone say that this lack of transactions "verges on
>> criminal negligence". :)
>
>The problem is not MySQL, it is not designed for such things. The problem
>is the tool you have chosen. There are plenty of good commercial database
>systems out there that can satisfy your need for Transactions.
Yes I know I can get versions of Oracle, Informix, Progress, etc for linux,
and some for free like PostgreSQL & MySQL, & variants.
I am not attacking MySQL, just clarifying that I'm not missing something,
& that it really does not support transactions yet calls itself a database,
which IMHO is misleading to say the least.
I understand MySQL's design decisions to go for speed instead of transactions,
but this rules it out for any serious database processing.
Yes it would be fine for lots of catalogue style web sites where its
mainly readonly lookups & occasional updates, updates mainly by a single user.
Missing out on subselects is neither here nor there, but not supporting
transactions or record locks is extremely limiting. Table locks are not
an alternative if there is to be any serious concurrency.
Having worked with Sybase I don't regard it as serious either since it
supports
only block locks which rapidly escalate to table locks, causing high
rate of deadlocks & rollback/retries in highly concurrent systems.
Oracle & Progress for example support true row locking, where only the rows
you want locked get locked. Oracle is particularly good in this area.
So it seems that MySQL is not a database (on my definition),
BUT it's very good & very fast at what it was designed to do,
which is "a collection of indexed tables supporting (most of) SQL queries,
oriented to mainly readonly use with mainly only a single user updating."
Sounds great for some things, but PostgresSQL sounds more like what I need.
Thanks Anthony & others for the info & opinions.
----------------------------------------------
Brian Martin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Future Software Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
