3 ms·

But when you consider MySQL's web-centric history, its lack of transactional and foreign key support, and its relaxed attitude with regard to data integrity 2

• brown9-2 17y ago
  Well if you don't support foreign keys in the main implementation (ISAM or whatever it's called), isn't it hard to say that you seriously care about data integrity?
  • blhack 17y ago
    MySQL DOES have support for foreign keys. create table foo (blah, blah, blah) engine = innodb Sorry, I'm not trying to start an argument. That sentence just struck me as a bit inflammatory.
    • modoc 17y ago
      The GP's point is that the default engine, and hence the one used by probably 90+% of people using MySQL doesn't support FKs and other "standard" data integrity features that you wouldn't even know to ask about, since every other major db supports them by default. Plus if you try to create an FK on a myisam backed table it happily runs the SQL, without errors, and you think you have a working FK.
      • staunch 17y ago
        I'd bet 90%+ of companies using MySQL for anything serious are using InnoDB.
      • jfarmer 17y ago
        It's more like the "default default" -- you can change it so, by default, every table is created using InnoDB. IIRC, MySQL comes with an example config that demonstrates just that.
• prodigal_erik 17y ago
  MySQL may or may not quietly ignore transactions and foreign keys and invalid values (substituting incorrect values that happen to be valid), depending on how it's configured, and the defaults are mostly wrong (unsafe). And as far as I know there is still no option for "make my transaction fail if I try to use a table that doesn't support transactions".
• dws 17y ago
  The article is vague on when MySQL was dissed, but the closer you get to 2002, the more common MySQL 4 was.