3 ms·

I would maybe start off by saying feature parity was/is never the goal. The original goal of MySQL was to be the "Ikea of databases" (both come from Sweden).

by morgo 9y ago

I would maybe start off by saying feature parity was/is never the goal. The original goal of MySQL was to be the "Ikea of databases" (both come from Sweden). Having said that, I think expectations on what is the minimal functionality have evolved, and we have responded by adding functionality like JSON in MySQL 5.7, and CTEs and Window Functions in 8.0. In terms of the specific issues you raise: * utf8 vs utf8mb4 is "problem #1" http://mysqlserverteam.com/sushi-beer-an-introduction-of-utf8-support-in-mysql-8-0/ http://mysqlserverteam.com/sushi-beer-an-introduction-of-utf... - we have switched the default in 8.0, and will deprecate utf8mb3 to reduce confusion: http://mysqlserverteam.com/mysql-8-0-when-to-use-utf8mb3-over-utf8mb4/ http://mysqlserverteam.com/mysql-8-0-when-to-use-utf8mb3-ove... * Implicit truncation and automatic type casting is no longer the default (strict was enabled for new installs in 5.6 (2013) and all installs in 5.7 (2015)). That is, unless the standard specifies it should (there are some weird cases). * 5.7 has virtual columns + indexes. This allows for a functional index. Edit: Missed a word, added computed columns

stouset 9y ago
Thanks for your reply! I'm thrilled to hear that MySQL is taking strictness much more seriously with the above-mentioned strategies. It looks the top few of my biggest gripes are getting addressed, and that's exciting news. Could you elaborate more on MySQL being the Ikea of databases? What exactly does that mean, and how do those things differentiate it from PostgreSQL currently (and how will they in the future)? If it's mostly just around new-developer friendliness, I worry that MySQL has more of an (admittedly somewhat exaggerated) reputation as the "PHP of databases" right now: it's easy to use out of the box, but in a way that doesn't discourage poor practice and results in traps and land-mines for future development. How do you guys plan on achieving such a (laudable) goal without bringing about the kind of baggage that stereotypically has come with it? FWIW, I suspect the strictness changes you mentioned will go a long way towards addressing that, but I'm curious if there's more you have in mind. PS. Apologies if I've set up a bit of a straw man in my last paragraph. I'm trying to predict what your answer to the prior paragraph might be and pose additional questions based on that answer to avoid an extra round-trip.
- morgo 9y ago
  I want to start by saying that gripes/land mines don't help anyone. We try to balance fixing these issues, while keeping a good upgrade story. XKCD does a good job of explaining the problem in https://xkcd.com/1172/ https://xkcd.com/1172/ In every major release we have a pseudo quota for incompatibility (5.5 changed default storage engine, 5.6 and 5.7 refactored a lot of the optimizer and transitioned defaults like strict mode on, 8.0 makes large changes to data dictionary). w.r.t Ikea of databases - I have a large Ikea desk that I sit some very heavy computers on. It is simple in design, but that does not make it limited.
  - stouset 9y ago
    I appreciate the responses. Thanks so much for your time!
StevePerkins 9y ago
> adding functionality like JSON in MySQL 5.7 In the Java world, the Spring framework is about to drop a new major release revolving around asynchronous or "reactive" programming. Many other programming languages and frameworks are already moving in this direction. This model pulls people toward alternative databases such as Cassandra, MongoDB, etc. Because you lose many of the advantages of asynchronous processing in the application tier, if your data access tier still relies on synchronous blocking API's (such as Java's JDBC and JPA). Recently I was researching whether any relational database vendors were adding support for asynchronous access, and stumbled across MySQL's new "X Protocol" basically by accident. The documentation is still rather new and thin, and I was puzzled that it seems to revolve 100% around the use case of MySQL as a document store to compete with MongoDB. Are there any plans to push the X Protocol further toward the spotlight, beef up the documentation, and emphasize use cases around asynchronous access as a relational database rather than document store?
- morgo 9y ago
  The "X" comes from it being a crossover/hybrid protocol between SQL and a CRUD API. It has a lot of modern protocol features, and uses protobufs, which makes it easy to add new driver support. The CRUD API has overlap with Document Stores like MongoDB, but the X Protocol really goes beyond that. There are plans to continue developing the X Protocol. We have also chatted about doing translation from the classic protocol to X Protocol in the MySQL Router. I agree with you that async is important. Stay tuned :-)
- eeZi 9y ago
  Red Hat is trying to address this with their Debezium project: http://debezium.io/ http://debezium.io/

by morgo 9y ago

stouset 9y ago

Thanks for your reply! I'm thrilled to hear that MySQL is taking strictness much more seriously with the above-mentioned strategies. It looks the top few of my biggest gripes are getting addressed, and that's exciting news. Could you elaborate more on MySQL being the Ikea of databases? What exactly does that mean, and how do those things differentiate it from PostgreSQL currently (and how will they in the future)? If it's mostly just around new-developer friendliness, I worry that MySQL has more of an (admittedly somewhat exaggerated) reputation as the "PHP of databases" right now: it's easy to use out of the box, but in a way that doesn't discourage poor practice and results in traps and land-mines for future development. How do you guys plan on achieving such a (laudable) goal without bringing about the kind of baggage that stereotypically has come with it? FWIW, I suspect the strictness changes you mentioned will go a long way towards addressing that, but I'm curious if there's more you have in mind. PS. Apologies if I've set up a bit of a straw man in my last paragraph. I'm trying to predict what your answer to the prior paragraph might be and pose additional questions based on that answer to avoid an extra round-trip.

morgo 9y ago
I want to start by saying that gripes/land mines don't help anyone. We try to balance fixing these issues, while keeping a good upgrade story. XKCD does a good job of explaining the problem in https://xkcd.com/1172/ https://xkcd.com/1172/ In every major release we have a pseudo quota for incompatibility (5.5 changed default storage engine, 5.6 and 5.7 refactored a lot of the optimizer and transitioned defaults like strict mode on, 8.0 makes large changes to data dictionary). w.r.t Ikea of databases - I have a large Ikea desk that I sit some very heavy computers on. It is simple in design, but that does not make it limited.
- stouset 9y ago
  I appreciate the responses. Thanks so much for your time!

StevePerkins 9y ago

> adding functionality like JSON in MySQL 5.7 In the Java world, the Spring framework is about to drop a new major release revolving around asynchronous or "reactive" programming. Many other programming languages and frameworks are already moving in this direction. This model pulls people toward alternative databases such as Cassandra, MongoDB, etc. Because you lose many of the advantages of asynchronous processing in the application tier, if your data access tier still relies on synchronous blocking API's (such as Java's JDBC and JPA). Recently I was researching whether any relational database vendors were adding support for asynchronous access, and stumbled across MySQL's new "X Protocol" basically by accident. The documentation is still rather new and thin, and I was puzzled that it seems to revolve 100% around the use case of MySQL as a document store to compete with MongoDB. Are there any plans to push the X Protocol further toward the spotlight, beef up the documentation, and emphasize use cases around asynchronous access as a relational database rather than document store?

morgo 9y ago
The "X" comes from it being a crossover/hybrid protocol between SQL and a CRUD API. It has a lot of modern protocol features, and uses protobufs, which makes it easy to add new driver support. The CRUD API has overlap with Document Stores like MongoDB, but the X Protocol really goes beyond that. There are plans to continue developing the X Protocol. We have also chatted about doing translation from the classic protocol to X Protocol in the MySQL Router. I agree with you that async is important. Stay tuned :-)
eeZi 9y ago
Red Hat is trying to address this with their Debezium project: http://debezium.io/ http://debezium.io/