> It is my contention that as the clustering capabilities of MySQL
> continue to grow and mature (think of when version 6.0 goes stable)
> companies will move to MySQL in droves. THEN you have the ability to
> build a single "virtual" database (at least from the point of view of
> your application) that will scale simply and elegantly. As I said in
> the previous email it is only that 5.1 is in beta that keeps this from
> being available now. And many companies, such as Kaneva, are doing this
> right now.
> The only reason that companies like Digg and Flikr can exist and grow at
> such phenomenal rates is that they keep the cost of the development of
> the system to a minimum and the overhead of operating (licensing costs
> and hardware cost) down as low as possible. In addition, of course,
> they need the ability to scale out very quickly. Digg didn't get any
> significant funding until just recently. And yet they epitomize the web
> 2.0 companies. They did it by both keeping their cost down and having
> the ability to grow quickly. Couldn't have done it with Oracle or MS.
> Just my thoughts :)
Right, sure... No-one cries when Digg loses an article. No gives a rats
ass when they loose their comments on Flikr.
Real systems with real data NEED features that actually exist in Oracle
or SQL Server or any other decent DBMS, that, until recently (and still
not quite there yet) just didn't exist in MySQL.
Transactions? Proper constraints? (when does MySQL come with Check
I'll say again: if you value your data, use constraints wherever possible
and use transactions.
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Database development questions? Check the forum!