At least it's MySQL. He could've asked for worse. :)

Thanks, Scott

On 9/28/07, gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net wrote:

Something tells me you've just handed scissors to someone who is going to run with them.

Geoff

-----Original Message----- From: Ray Leventhal centos@swhi.net Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:38:03 To:CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] mysql and windows

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

...

CentOS 5.0 x86 provides mysql for free. However I couldn't find a free version of mysql for windows. Isn't there any for windows?

OT for this list, but here are 2 links

http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html#win32

http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html#winx64

registration is optional, downloads appear to be free

HTH, ~Ray

gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net wrote:

What's worse than mysql? dd? cpio?

Geoff

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

oh, I dunno...perhaps cfdisk? grub?

I'm literally laughing out loud here

~R

Mysql is to databases what Lincoln logs are to cinder blocks.

Geoff

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message----- From: gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:56:02 To:"CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] mysql and windows

Those two allow you to know you destroyed your data immediately. Mysql let's you know only after you do a select * from ... sometime later.

Geoff

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message----- From: Ray Leventhal centos@swhi.net

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:51:55 To:CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] mysql and windows

gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net wrote:

What's worse than mysql? dd? cpio?

Geoff

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

oh, I dunno...perhaps cfdisk? grub?

I'm literally laughing out loud here

~R _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Postgresql

Geoff

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message----- From: Miark mlist@gardnerbusiness.com

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:28:44 To:centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] mysql and windows

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:01:07 +0000, gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net wrote:

Mysql is to databases what Lincoln logs are to cinder blocks.

What open source DB progs do you like--if any?

Miark _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

You're right. Pgsql isn't my only favorite db solution. I'm running MS SQL 2005 express edition because shavlik will use either access or SQL server for its datastore and I don't trust access at all and never will. Sleepycat is also good for applications that don't need a full rdbms. There are a few more places here and there where I use different db's but I stay away from two if possible: access/jet and mysql.

Geoff

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message----- From: John Hinton webmaster@ew3d.com

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:01:10 To:CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] mysql and windows

gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net wrote:

Postgresql

Geoff

My thought is one should never have only a hammer in their toolbox. It can be hard to remove a nut with a hammer without doing damage. Just about every database has its pros and cons. The task at hand should be considered and then matched to the proper tool.... or database. Heck, even text flatfiles have their place.. bdb.. oracle..

A good mechanic understands the right tool for the job and has that tool in their toolbox.... or gets the tool.

John Hinton

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message----- From: Miark mlist@gardnerbusiness.com

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:28:44 To:centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] mysql and windows

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:01:07 +0000, gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net wrote:

...

Mysql is to databases what Lincoln logs are to cinder blocks.

What open source DB progs do you like--if any?

Miark _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

!DSPAM:46fd80c4268271848244728!

_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Friday 28 September 2007, Miark wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:01:07 +0000, gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net

wrote:

...

Mysql is to databases what Lincoln logs are to cinder blocks.

What open source DB progs do you like--if any?

You shouldn't have asked that question... :)

When the dust settles at the end of the religious war you just started, you'll usually end up with people mostly agreeing on the following points:

* mysql is faster in high volume, mostly read, simple query scenarios. Especially if your app can use a query cache, its not even close. pg wins when you have much more complex queries or more writes.

* pg scales higher - I just finished some testing on a 32 core box and it scaled almost as well as oracle (oracle got 23 times single core performance, pg 21 times). mysql levels off pretty much at 4-8 (depending on workload) - larger machines often get slower.This is now changing with falcon though, so look out for 5.2...

* pg allows higher concurrency. If you pull data, then mangle it for a while before going back to the DB with the next query, mysql can sometimes become dog slow... pg with row versioning allows for higher concurrency. Again, falcon fixes a lot of that.

* pg recovers better than mysql. However if recovery fails for some reason, finding someone who can salvage at least something, is next to impossible.

* backup is faster in pg, recover is faster in mysql...

* pg adheres much better to the sql standards than mysql

In the end, this is enough reason for me to go with pg in most cases - and if that is too large, sqlite... Between the two, there is little space left for mysql in my world.

Peter.

On Friday 28 September 2007, Brad Beyenhof wrote:

What about for new database users? I assume there's boatloads of documentation for all options, but which tends to work well for those attempting to learn DB management?

Depends on what your goal is... If it is just "how does a rdbms work" then mysql would be easier because it has the better set of graphical/webbased management tools (phpmyadmin is impressive). mysql is also a little bit easier to setup at the beginning.

If you're looking to do more interesting things like tablespaces (stuff that you can find in the large commercial engines) you need to go with pg. many people get turned off pg when they can't figure out authentication within the first 5 minutes but it is well worth it to me.

Peter.

Peter Arremann wrote:

If you're looking to do more interesting things like tablespaces (stuff that you can find in the large commercial engines) you need to go with pg. many people get turned off pg when they can't figure out authentication within the first 5 minutes but it is well worth it to me.

Apache Derby (nee Cloudscape) is nice too, and for scalability up to and exceeding Oracle, DB2 Express-C is nice too. It is free as in beer. The free version is limited in memory and cpus etc but is fully featured... but if you need it you can scale out on many kinds of hardware.

My problem with mysql just stems from watching how it has developed from the early days. It has a sleepycat core (nothing wrong with that), but the added functionality to make it an rdbms revolves around whatever is popular at the time and quick to do rather than what do other databases do.

I'm dating myself, but I remember when the mysql crowd used to scream if you mentioned transactions. They used to have a full page on their site about how transactions were unnecessary and getting the data in as fast as possible was a better idea.

Now? When did they put transactions in? 2-3 Years ago? A feature that all other SQL based rdbms' including postgres have had since the beginning of their existence. There are other outstanding technical reasons that make me stay away from mysql whenever possible. I just have severe disagreements with their development ideology which ultimately results in a flawed end product.

Geoff

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message----- From: Peter Arremann loony@loonybin.org

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:52:25 To:CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] mysql and windows

On Friday 28 September 2007, Miark wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:01:07 +0000, gjgowey@tmo.blackberry.net

wrote:

...

Mysql is to databases what Lincoln logs are to cinder blocks.

What open source DB progs do you like--if any?

You shouldn't have asked that question... :)

When the dust settles at the end of the religious war you just started, you'll usually end up with people mostly agreeing on the following points:

* mysql is faster in high volume, mostly read, simple query scenarios. Especially if your app can use a query cache, its not even close. pg wins when you have much more complex queries or more writes.

* pg scales higher - I just finished some testing on a 32 core box and it scaled almost as well as oracle (oracle got 23 times single core performance, pg 21 times). mysql levels off pretty much at 4-8 (depending on workload) - larger machines often get slower.This is now changing with falcon though, so look out for 5.2...

* pg allows higher concurrency. If you pull data, then mangle it for a while before going back to the DB with the next query, mysql can sometimes become dog slow... pg with row versioning allows for higher concurrency. Again, falcon fixes a lot of that.

* pg recovers better than mysql. However if recovery fails for some reason, finding someone who can salvage at least something, is next to impossible.

* backup is faster in pg, recover is faster in mysql...

* pg adheres much better to the sql standards than mysql

In the end, this is enough reason for me to go with pg in most cases - and if that is too large, sqlite... Between the two, there is little space left for mysql in my world.

Peter. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos