Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:10:57 -0400, Ray Ingles wrote:
>
>> On 2006-08-29, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:17:19 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> MySQL runs fastest
>>
>>> Funny... ISTR a few folks in these parts whining about how sad and
>>> pathetic MySQL is compared to a "real" database.
>>
>> One can be faster by taking shortcuts. My understanding is that MySQL
>> *does*, in fact, have some limitations and lacks some features. It's
>> possible for MySQL to perform well in some circumstances and not others,
>> just like you wouldn't want to commute in a Formula 1 race car, or put a
>> stock car up against Formula 1's in a race.
>
> Sure, and fast isn't everything. I just think it's kinda funny, watching
> huge site after huge site roll out MySQL and have it suit their needs just
> fine, even under very high loads and with huge databases, while our
> resident DB trolls tell us how it isn't really fit to be used.
>
> Kinda cute, actually, watching them rail as the rest of the planet seems
> totally unconcerned with their pet views on things. :)
Huh, my experience is different---because ive actually used it for a wide
variety of applications.
And it sucks ass in many ways.
I had two enormous problems with MYSQL:
1. it does NOT do hot database dumps, which is inexcusable. The little
perl script that comes with it thats supposed to do hot dumps--locks all
the tables before it dumps anything, which of course is NOT A HOT DUMP.
2. in the face of heavy load (say, gzipping a db dump that required every
freaking table be locked, see above), there's a major problem with reads
and inserts stumbling over themselves and causing major problems and in
the worst cases, db errors which then have to be corrected, of course,
by hand.
Sure, compared to MSSQL it's fabulous. But compared to sybase, oracle
or DB2? It sucks ass.
-----yttrx
--
http://www.yttrx.net
|
|
