5 ms·

I wouldn't bet on these indexes optimizing anything back then. MySQL was legendary that while implementing the necessary standards (to some degree) it was neith

I wouldn't bet on these indexes optimizing anything back then. MySQL was legendary that while implementing the necessary standards (to some degree) it was neither reliable nor efficient.

junon 5y ago
That's pretty beside the point though, the concept of indexing had existed for decades even prior to that.
- pgeorgi 5y ago
  The quote was "database optimization features" and the scope was "MySQL as of 2002". Of course, even my old DBase II handbook talks about indexes - all that's old hat. MySQL had them, too. MySQL also used to have a long-earned reputation as a toy database though, and MySQL in 2002 was right within the timeframe where it established that reputation. So yeah, you could add indexes, but did they speed things up (as in them being an "optimization feature")? Public opinion was rather torn on that.
  - junon 5y ago
    I was there and I don't remember it like you describe. MySQL was certainly not a toy database in 2002. I learned PHP from a book called "PHP and MySQL". They went together like white on rice. Every forum software used it. Hell, even today Uber uses MySQL at a VERY large scale to power their schemaless database.
    - pgeorgi 5y ago
      I was there, too, and I wasn't alone in my assessment: https://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/2210771/MySQL--Yesterdays-Toy-Tomorrows-Contender.htm https://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/2... (to pick a contemporary example using that exact word) suggests that the 2003 release of mysql4 ends the "toy status". Others might have had different thresholds, but that reputation was hard earned and back then still pretty apropos (to a declining degree over time because MySQL caught up). I lost data to MySQL more than once (if memory serves but it's been a while: MyISAM was a mess, the InnoDB integration not ready yet) To handwave two extreme positions of those days (because I'm too lazy to look up ancient forums where such stuff has been discussed at length), it's very possible that different groups approached things differently: Members of a PHP User Group probably didn't consider MySQL a toy but the best thing since sliced bread, given how closely aligned PHP was to MySQL back then (it got more varied over time, but that preference can still be felt in PHP projects) OTOH when you had a significant amount of perl coders in your peer group, it was rather likely that some of them could go on for days about how _both_ PHP and MySQL are toys when anybody dared to talk about PHP (which ties in neatly with the original post and its reference about "The One") [bonus: more recent example: http://www.backwardcompatible.net/145-Why-is-MySQL-still-a-toy-database http://www.backwardcompatible.net/145-Why-is-MySQL-still-a-t...]
eklitzke 5y ago
Indexes in MySQL worked fine in 2002, at least for the use case described in this article.

I wouldn't bet on these indexes optimizing anything back then. MySQL was legendary that while implementing the necessary standards (to some degree) it was neither reliable nor efficient.

junon 5y ago

That's pretty beside the point though, the concept of indexing had existed for decades even prior to that.

pgeorgi 5y ago
The quote was "database optimization features" and the scope was "MySQL as of 2002". Of course, even my old DBase II handbook talks about indexes - all that's old hat. MySQL had them, too. MySQL also used to have a long-earned reputation as a toy database though, and MySQL in 2002 was right within the timeframe where it established that reputation. So yeah, you could add indexes, but did they speed things up (as in them being an "optimization feature")? Public opinion was rather torn on that.
- junon 5y ago
  I was there and I don't remember it like you describe. MySQL was certainly not a toy database in 2002. I learned PHP from a book called "PHP and MySQL". They went together like white on rice. Every forum software used it. Hell, even today Uber uses MySQL at a VERY large scale to power their schemaless database.
  - pgeorgi 5y ago
    I was there, too, and I wasn't alone in my assessment: https://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/2210771/MySQL--Yesterdays-Toy-Tomorrows-Contender.htm https://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/2... (to pick a contemporary example using that exact word) suggests that the 2003 release of mysql4 ends the "toy status". Others might have had different thresholds, but that reputation was hard earned and back then still pretty apropos (to a declining degree over time because MySQL caught up). I lost data to MySQL more than once (if memory serves but it's been a while: MyISAM was a mess, the InnoDB integration not ready yet) To handwave two extreme positions of those days (because I'm too lazy to look up ancient forums where such stuff has been discussed at length), it's very possible that different groups approached things differently: Members of a PHP User Group probably didn't consider MySQL a toy but the best thing since sliced bread, given how closely aligned PHP was to MySQL back then (it got more varied over time, but that preference can still be felt in PHP projects) OTOH when you had a significant amount of perl coders in your peer group, it was rather likely that some of them could go on for days about how _both_ PHP and MySQL are toys when anybody dared to talk about PHP (which ties in neatly with the original post and its reference about "The One") [bonus: more recent example: http://www.backwardcompatible.net/145-Why-is-MySQL-still-a-toy-database http://www.backwardcompatible.net/145-Why-is-MySQL-still-a-t...]

eklitzke 5y ago

Indexes in MySQL worked fine in 2002, at least for the use case described in this article.