all
please note .. speling is only as good as neurologically
damaged hands and eyes will permit .. pick someting else to
complain about.
On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 01:44:01AM +0800, Luuk de Boer wrote:
> On 26 Apr 99, at 10:14, Alvin Starr wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 luuk@stripped wrote:
> >
> > [snip..snip]
> you are asking your self ... this is so slow ... lets start using text
> files again if you didn't know anything about mysql ... :-))
we in fact do use text based data structures and mysql has yet
to implement such simple and fundamental suffort as a fully
indexed text field object.
i'v asked and have been told its in the pot, so i'm waiting
patiently, well i'm also playing with postgresql as well. we
have been caught once or twice with all of our eggs in one
basket .. so we are using teh old multisourcing techneque. just
in case, prudence always demands more than one spoon for the
pot.
but to continue ..
while all this discussion about brute performance is good, it
neglects many areas of real importance .. such as data
integrity and data retrievability after catastrophic failure of
one off, or all of the systems involved in the data manageemnt
train.
data back up is far more important that transactions per
second, as most admin discover when they migrate from small
(teh mutli-million dollar) companies to teh big companies that
use main frames and measure uptime in years .. and the big ones
in decades.
it is ok to be able to process at a blingingrate on a linux box
in teh corner ... but wht do you do after its eaten your data
and yo couldn't get a complete backup because mysql dosn;t
havethat facility .. or if you stopyour sytems to do teh
required backup it would be nice to have rollback, another
item that is important to 'real database' managers.
currently form what i've seen mysql is nice for a dbase style
database system, but it has a long way to go beofre it will be
'taken seriously', thier are still some signifivant
fundamentals that have been described as superflious issues and
put into the tobe done one day, if we get around to it, box.
while i think a brute force processing speed display is good,
for a desision tree of equals, it be be far better for mysql as
a whole to concentrate on getting to the stage where it is
offering equal facilities and systems witht he oracles,
sybases, ingresses, rdbms, db2s, and postgresgls of this world.
who knows in providing equal functionality mysql might find it
self in teh middle of teh pack insted of outrunning it.
it was once said that it is a lot easier to have great
performance whe you don't have to worry about the reat issues
involved in database retirivability or teh other issues
concerning data integrity and databse maintnance and or
management.
> > The issue has yet to be settled but I expect our customer will be using
> > Mysql instead of Oracle. Why you may ask. The answer is support. There was
> > no requirement for functions like transatctions, subqueries or views.
> > Granted this is not an extreemly complex application but it is mission
> > critical to our customer.
...and as teh monstrosity that is teh world wide web grows so
will teh need fro more and more complex applications. these
very same applications that have all teh database fundamentals
that made them good database managers yesterday when teh
mainframe was teh tool of choice for databse systems...and for
tomorrow when the mainframe will again be teh tool of choice
for database systems.
i would like to see mysql succed . but it has a long way to go
before it as the goods to be atractive to people who have teh
money to keep the developers solvent.
regards
jonathan
--
===============================================================================
Jonathan Michaels
PO Box 144, Rosebery, NSW 1445 Australia
===========================================================<jon@stripped>
