5 ms·

Half of those items are already in MySQL 5.7 or 5.8. What's terrible to you is a plus for Web 2.0 data storage - not everybody wants B&D just to insert a row o

Half of those items are already in MySQL 5.7 or 5.8. What's terrible to you is a plus for Web 2.0 data storage - not everybody wants B&D just to insert a row or to select a timestamp. I happen to use both databases, but I recommend MySQL first for startups.

jimktrains2 9y ago
Your recommendation is terrible. Mysql has data consistency issues. It's simply terrible to work with. It doesn't have real data types or complex indecies. The window functions they're adding aren't all that comprehensive. Window functions and ctes are in a pre release version, compared to what? Nearly a decade of production use? There are so many fewer gotchyas with mysql it's not even funny. Just stupid things like "This version of MySQL doesn't yet support 'LIMIT & IN/ALL/ANY/SOME subquery'". The query planner is crap and I've actually had it hang the instance. The explain output is barely usable compared to postgres'. Postgres supports a rich set of languages to write functions in. Postgres supports rich set of column, row, and table access control. Postgres supports returning syntax on updates. As far as I know check constraints are still _silently_ ignored in mysql 5.8. silently! That illustrates exactly why I don't trust mysql and probably never will. What is one advantage that mysql has that outweighs its enormous pile of garbage it brings along? What is one advantage worth not trusting your tool to work?
- tomnipotent 9y ago
  Many of the things you've listed are not important for a wide class of projects that MySQL is used for. Facebook, Google, and Yahoo must be fools for using MySQL - clearly don't know what they're doing /s. > What is one advantage that mysql has that outweighs Replication & performance for most workloads. I've found it helpful to think of MySQL as less of a relational database, and more of a KV database with secondary index support and a SQL api.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    > Replication & performance for most workloads. I'm still not sold that any slight advantage in either of these cases is worth not having a flexible and trustworthy tool. > I've found it helpful to think of MySQL as less of a relational database, and more of a KV database with secondary index support and a SQL api. And that's not what most businesses need, especially right out of the gate. From my understanding that's what those large companies you mentioned and Uber do. They also have people who contribute code to mysql or mariadb, allowing them to fix any issues they have. Most businesses do not have that luxury nor would they be best off with only a kv store.
    - tomnipotent 9y ago
      > not having a flexible and trustworthy tool. Everything you've pointed out are great examples of technical demerits... but none that really transfer over in any negative way to the business besides developer frustration. I wouldn't be surprised if MySQL got replication out so earl because it was such a POS that needed a better backup strategy, but that doesn't change the battle-hardened RDBMS it's become today. > And that's not what most businesses need Most businesses don't know what they need until they're a few years in, and database software isn't going to be on any execs top 100 list of things troubling the company. > They also have people who contribute code to mysql or mariadb Contributions that are from non-trivial deployments, supplemented with countless years running in production across millions of installs of Wordpress and phpBB thanks to cheap web hosting - I don't think there's any other database in this category that can claim it has seen more service. It's just another software tool like any other, sorta pointless to shit on it just because you don't have a problem where it works.
      - jimktrains2 9y ago
        I'm not going to continue this. MySQL is technically inferior by almost every metric. Businesses don't know what they need, which is why they need something flexible and reliable, not something that will crap out. I honestly don't know why anything but institutional inertia is even a sane reason to use MySQL. There are better rdbms. There are better key value stores.

jimktrains2 9y ago

Your recommendation is terrible. Mysql has data consistency issues. It's simply terrible to work with. It doesn't have real data types or complex indecies. The window functions they're adding aren't all that comprehensive. Window functions and ctes are in a pre release version, compared to what? Nearly a decade of production use? There are so many fewer gotchyas with mysql it's not even funny. Just stupid things like "This version of MySQL doesn't yet support 'LIMIT & IN/ALL/ANY/SOME subquery'". The query planner is crap and I've actually had it hang the instance. The explain output is barely usable compared to postgres'. Postgres supports a rich set of languages to write functions in. Postgres supports rich set of column, row, and table access control. Postgres supports returning syntax on updates. As far as I know check constraints are still _silently_ ignored in mysql 5.8. silently! That illustrates exactly why I don't trust mysql and probably never will. What is one advantage that mysql has that outweighs its enormous pile of garbage it brings along? What is one advantage worth not trusting your tool to work?

tomnipotent 9y ago
Many of the things you've listed are not important for a wide class of projects that MySQL is used for. Facebook, Google, and Yahoo must be fools for using MySQL - clearly don't know what they're doing /s. > What is one advantage that mysql has that outweighs Replication & performance for most workloads. I've found it helpful to think of MySQL as less of a relational database, and more of a KV database with secondary index support and a SQL api.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > Replication & performance for most workloads. I'm still not sold that any slight advantage in either of these cases is worth not having a flexible and trustworthy tool. > I've found it helpful to think of MySQL as less of a relational database, and more of a KV database with secondary index support and a SQL api. And that's not what most businesses need, especially right out of the gate. From my understanding that's what those large companies you mentioned and Uber do. They also have people who contribute code to mysql or mariadb, allowing them to fix any issues they have. Most businesses do not have that luxury nor would they be best off with only a kv store.
  - tomnipotent 9y ago
    > not having a flexible and trustworthy tool. Everything you've pointed out are great examples of technical demerits... but none that really transfer over in any negative way to the business besides developer frustration. I wouldn't be surprised if MySQL got replication out so earl because it was such a POS that needed a better backup strategy, but that doesn't change the battle-hardened RDBMS it's become today. > And that's not what most businesses need Most businesses don't know what they need until they're a few years in, and database software isn't going to be on any execs top 100 list of things troubling the company. > They also have people who contribute code to mysql or mariadb Contributions that are from non-trivial deployments, supplemented with countless years running in production across millions of installs of Wordpress and phpBB thanks to cheap web hosting - I don't think there's any other database in this category that can claim it has seen more service. It's just another software tool like any other, sorta pointless to shit on it just because you don't have a problem where it works.
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      I'm not going to continue this. MySQL is technically inferior by almost every metric. Businesses don't know what they need, which is why they need something flexible and reliable, not something that will crap out. I honestly don't know why anything but institutional inertia is even a sane reason to use MySQL. There are better rdbms. There are better key value stores.