It seems an article on Ars Technica has already compiled some defect of MySQL: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=92525 http://arstechnica.com/c

It seems an article on Ars Technica has already compiled some defect of MySQL: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=92525 http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=92525 Another thing that reminds of PHP, the list of commands: mysql mysql_client_test_embedded mysql_find_rows mysqlrepair mysql_tzinfo_to_sql mysqlaccess mysql_config mysql_fix_extensions mysqlreport mysql_upgrade mysqladmin mysql_convert_table_format mysql_fix_privilege_tables mysql_secure_installation mysql_waitpid mysqlanalyze mysqld mysqlhotcopy mysql_setpermission mysql_zap mysqlbinlog mysqld_multi mysqlimport mysqlshow mysqlbug mysqld_safe mysql_install_db mysqlslap mysqlcheck mysqldump mysqlmanager mysqltest mysql_client_test mysqldumpslow mysqloptimize mysqltest_embedded Why the hell show we want a 'mysqldumpslow'? Is it because mysqldump is fast but wrong? And why not mysql_dump? I have started with MySQL for my first (php) website, and to me the database was just the natural storage, I had no idea of the problems, because I didn't know that a relational database is a particular well-defined mathematical object, which asserts truths about the "world" in a manner that makes it possible to model this world safely and ask questions about it. Then I used PostgreSQL at my previous work, and discovered it all, the hard way. And PostgreSQL has (almost) always been a reliable companion taking care of the most valuable asset: the Data. Then I switched job and have to use MySQL again. I live with it, it's fine, but the difference is not benign, and I sometime wonder if the NoSQL movement is not a partly a misunderstanding and should renamed NoMySQL: when using an unreliable datastore, it is certainly better to use one that is explicitly not reliable and do not force on you the relational model while, at the same time, not giving you its strengths.