Karel Zak wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:05:21PM +0700, David Garamond wrote:
>
>>So in my opinion, as long as the general awareness about RDBMS (on what
>>tasks/responsibilities it should do, what features it generally has to
>>have, etc) is low, people will be looking at MySQL as "good enough" and
>>will not be motivated to look around for something better. As a
>>comparison, I'm always amazed by people who use Windows 95/98/Me. They
>>find it normal/"good enough" that the system crashes every now and then,
>>has to be rebooted every few hours (or every time they install
>>something). They don't know of anything better.
>
>
> Agree. People don't know that an RDBMS can be more better.
>
> A lot of users think speed is the most important thing. And they check
> the performance of SQL server by "time mysql -e "SELECT..." but they
> don't know something about concurrency or locking.
Even worse: They benchmark "SELECT 1+1" one million times.
The performance of "SELECT 1+1" has NOTHING to do with the REAL
performance of a database.
Has anybody seen the benchmarks on MySQL??? They have benchmarked
"CREATE TABLE" and so forth. This is the most useless thing I have ever
seen.
It is so annoying _ I had to post it ;).
Regards,
Hans
> BTW, is the current MySQL target (replication, transactions, ..etc)
> what typical MySQL users expect? I think they will lost users who love
> classic, fast and simple MySQL. The trade with advanced SQL servers is
> pretty full. I don't understand why MySQL developers want to leave
> their current possition and want to fight with PostgreSQL, Oracle, DB2
> .. etc.
>
> Karel
>
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
