Home > Databases > MySQL 5.0.15 Released MySQL 5.0.15 Released Submitted by anonymous 2005-10-24 Databases 26 Comments “MySQL 5.0.15, a new version of the popular Open Source Database Management System, has been released. The Community Edition is now available in source and binary form for a number of platforms from our download pages.” About The Author Thom Holwerda Follow me on Mastodon @email@example.com 26 Comments 2005-10-24 4:30 pm Amanda Finally our beloved MySQL database now comes with stored procedures and triggers support officially. These had been the long-requested features where most other wide-spreaded database packages had already offered them for decades. Really hope this new version can really make most IT departments re-evaluate its features and justify the potential of deploying the product to other serious business environments in addition to typical web applications. 2005-10-24 4:46 pm Matt Giacomini I don’t want to open source my app, and I don’t want to pay when database like Firebird and PostgreSQL are around. I guess my working around with mySQL 5 will just be to try it out. 2005-10-24 4:48 pm Anonymous The world’s most advanced open source database http://www.postgresql.org/ 2005-10-24 5:34 pm Anonymous I said to myself: “how long does it take for someone to post that postgresql is better than…” and so on. Wake up: MySQL is one of the most used databases that gets with 5.0 functionality that brings it up to par with postgresql. In the field of tooling (mysql admin, query browser) installation support under windows (msi) it is already beyond postgresql. 2005-10-25 3:23 pm Anonymous wake up: windows is the most used operating system 2005-10-26 7:48 am Anonymous lol, postgresql 8.0 has been released one year ago, and is native under windows. What do you mean exactly with “wake up” ? 2005-10-24 6:47 pm Bascule Oh come now, MySQL 4.1 added support for subselects, 5.0 is now production ready and has added a whole slew of features like named rollback points, stored procedures, triggers, etc. What compelling reason is there to continue using Postgres? Can you name any features which Postgres has which MySQL 5.0 still lacks? InnoDB, advanced replication, and its overall speed and widespread support are all very compelling reasons to go with MySQL. Postgres has always been a bit player who was always a bit ahead of MySQL in terms of overall features while lagging behind in terms of performance. Now that MySQL has essentially achieved feature parity, why continue to use the bit player instead of the massive juggernaut? 2005-10-24 7:01 pm Anonymous Absolutely right! Dead on! You forgot to mention the perfect support for the Windows platform, the very, very nice gui tools (administrator and query browser). Go MySQL! 2005-10-24 7:10 pm Anonymous Judging performance without providing any detail is useless. It really depends on how you tune DB and SQL code. InnoDB, right, what’s the future of InnoDB? I do not know, maybe you know. I am not saying InnoDB is dead, but we do not know what Oracle will do with it. It’s good enough for PHP web sites, but many enteprises will not bet on something that has unknow future. 2005-10-24 8:50 pm unoengborg What compelling reason is there to continue using Postgres? Can you name any features which Postgres has which MySQL 5.0 still lacks? How about full outer join, yes you can do workarounds with unions but it is not as convienient as being able to do it directly. How about domains, using domains and specifially using constraints related domains makes your code much more readable and maintanable. How about the object oriented extensions in postgresql How about being able to write stored procedures in many different programming languages. How about CHECK(VALUE expression) constraints in table creation statements. Not exactly SQL standard, but supported by most databases. How about turning on things like referential integrety by default. … InnoDB, advanced replication, and its overall speed and widespread support are all very compelling reasons to go with MySQL. Postgres has always been a bit player who was always a bit ahead of MySQL in terms of overall features while lagging behind in terms of performance. Now that MySQL has essentially achieved feature parity, why continue to use the bit player instead of the massive juggernaut? At best, the difference in speed, is minimal if you turn on the referential integrety stuff in MySQL. Unless you are building a read only database I see no advantages in using MySQL. 2005-10-24 11:22 pm Anonymous didn’t you try SP in mysql5? mysql zealot. You cannot generate dynamic SQL in SP and execute it. I understand SP is a new, amazing features for you, but not for other DB users. 2005-10-25 8:05 am Anonymous 1. Stored procedures and views need a lot of time and tuning to integrate in an RDBMS. Do you _really_ think that you can plug stored procedures and go away ? LOL 2. MySQL is faster than PostgreSQL with MySQL benchmarks, that’s all. Using PostgreSQL as if it’s MySQL is idiotic. PostgreSQL permits deep optimization, starting from stored procedures. Comparing MySQL and PostrgreSQL without using all of Postgres features because the other is underfeatured is dishonest. 3. PostgreSQL follows SQL’s ANSI specification. MySQL, obviously, not. 4. With PostgreSQL I can write stored procedures in Python or in Ruby, and in a lot of other languages. MySQL ? 5. Do MySQL have features like partial indexes or PostgreSQL schemas ? 6. Does MySQL 5.0 correct all the gotchas of 4.1 breaking all the code or keeps behaving as always ? (http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html) Who’s the zealot now ? 2005-10-25 11:20 am unoengborg 3. PostgreSQL follows SQL’s ANSI specification. MySQL, obviously, not. Well, postgresql is quite far from following SQL standards too. In fact very few databases do follow the standards. Even Oracle, DB2, MS-SQL Server, and for that matter Postgresql all have all sorts of extensions that make them deviate from the standards. The difference is that if you decide to use standard code you will be much better off in Postgres than in MySQL, and what’s more important, if you try to port code from Oracle, MS-SQL Server or other common database engines you will have a much easier job if you port it to Postgresql. Now, there are situations where MySQL actually is the BEST choice. Ironically that is when you don’t use the new features that comes with MySQL version 4 and above. Such situation would be read only databases. Then you don’t need the new fancy stuff and you can take advantage of the blazing speed MySQL offers when everything you normally take for granted in a RDMS is turned off. The problem I have with MySQL is how they advertise their product. They sell it on speed and features, while it in reality should be speed or features and the advanced features they mention often just have some minimal functionality. You always have to read the fine print before using them or you will be very disappointed. I think that the bait and switch marketing that MySQL does is a bit dishonest, and many people that have used other high end RDBMS, and knows what to expect from such systems, usually agrees. That is why the first post on any Mysql related story usually reads “Postgresql is better”. 2005-10-24 7:07 pm Anonymous BSD license instead of an enforced buy yourself out GPL 😉 Besides that realiabilty, better query optimizer, faster in joins over more tables, higher sql compliance, proven trackrecord of stability, more language bindings for stored procs, no company crying we are enterprise ready for week,s while in reality being really enterprise ready and a myriad of other arguments! MySQL just reached the point where all the others (Firebird, Postgresql etc…) have been 1999 2005-10-24 7:59 pm Anonymous Sorry but if MySQL has caught up with what PG/Firebird had in 1999 can you please mention what important features have this two fine DBM have added since 1999? Even though you sound like a troll I’ll take you up and give you a chance to redeem yourself. AEM 2005-10-24 7:19 pm Adam Scheinberg The biggest reason to continue to choose MySQL over PostgreSQL is phpMyAdmin. phpPgAdmin is NOWHERE NEAR as useful (although is very pretty). phpMyAdmin is very advanced and can be deployed easily by a host or a server admin. 2005-10-24 9:43 pm unoengborg Have we been using the same program?! phpPgAdmin 3.5.x manages every aspect of Postgresql. Data, databases, tables, table spaces, domains, stored procedures, constraints, triggers, users, …. What more do you wan’t it to do. The only really bad thing I can say about phpPgAdmin is that the Swedish translation is terrible. I don’t know about other translations but if they are as bad as the Swedish one, I suggest you send in a bug report or a patch. I intend to do as soon I get some free time on my hands. 2005-10-25 12:01 am Wrawrat Like your average DBA is going to use phpmyadmin. Last time I used it, it didn’t really supported foreign constraints correctly. As for speed, it really depends on how you use it: InnoDB tend to be quite speedy with SELECTs but slower with INSERT and UPDATEs. That’s not much of an issue if you don’t use it, but I believe more people should care about the integrity of their data. 2005-10-24 7:39 pm kamper I’m not an expert in either, these are just my observations after having fooled around with both at home for a while: Features aside, pg just seems way easier to use. The documentation was very straightforward (found it much easier to read than mysql’s) and everything that I wanted to do was doable with a little reading. When using mysql it always seemed like I wanted to do something slightly complicated only to find that it wasn’t supported. Subqueries pre-4.1 are a perfect example, although I encountered lots more along the way. When writing queries, stuff in pg just seemed to flow and work like I expected almost right away. Numerous times I was mystified as to why a mysql query didn’t work, only to dig through the docs to find the reason was an obscure bug or optimization that shouldn’t have mattered. As for tools, the included pgadmin was always more than good enough for me and I’ve never found anything I’ve really like for mysql so I always use the command line. The last thing I can think of is that pg doesn’t have quite the fanboy base that mysql does. Whenever someone asks about a free db, the php-hacking kiddies all jump in and say “mysql is teh b0mb!”. Of course now we’ve got the reaction of pg fans automatically bashing mysql everytime it’s mentioned :p Anyways, I don’t mean to put mysql down, just to say that I like pg better Congrats to mysql on making such big steps and hopefully everything continues to improve and people can just use what they like 2005-10-24 7:46 pm Anonymous That unfortunately is a huge issue, Oracle easily can say, InnoDB no more non GPL license to MySQL AB, they wont do it for now, but things might become harder for MySQL AB to keep their business model. All they can do is to free themselves from InnoDB which also would cause some breakage in customer apps. They have some options left. a) Integrate the MySQL AB repository b) Integrate the postgresql repository c) Integrate the Firebird repository Given that most of the stuff they provide themselves is the SQL parser and the drivers and a non transactional repo, going a we write our own repo approach is out of the question. Going DBD alone also probably is no option. 2005-10-24 8:04 pm Anonymous If you read a couple of articles you would know that InnoDB is open source and if Oracle decides to close shop the source is still there. MySQL would only need to add maybe a few developers and continue InnoDB’s development on its own. I don’t see it as a major roadblock. Maybe just a temporary delay in new features. AEM 2005-10-24 8:23 pm Anonymous “If you read a couple of articles you would know that InnoDB is open source and if Oracle decides to close shop the source is still there. MySQL would only need to add maybe a few developers and continue InnoDB’s development on its own. I don’t see it as a major roadblock. Maybe just a temporary delay in new features.” The problem for the company is they could no longer charge for Innodb since it would be GPL code they were forking. So it doesn’t hurt the consumer as much as it hurts the company. 2005-10-25 12:29 am unoengborg The problem for the company is they could no longer charge for Innodb since it would be GPL code they were forking. Nothing in GPL prevents you from charging, the problem is to motivate your customer to pay you. I suppose one such motivation could be giving paying customers higher priority to support issues, so that their bugs were the ones first to be solved. However I would guess that this would be far less profitable than the current MySQL way of doing business. What MySQL couldn’t do if InnoDB was GPL only, would be to offer it to customers for closed source use. 2005-10-24 11:54 pm Anonymous > I don’t want to open source my app, and I don’t want to > pay when database like Firebird and PostgreSQL are > around. Why dont you want to pay for a MySQL proprietary licence? Because youre a leech? > I guess my working around with mySQL 5 will just be to > try it out. Yes, and then please f–k off. 2005-10-25 1:37 am Amanda I’m not sure if this is the OSNews-culture or not, but it seems that whenever a new product is released, zealots of other competing products will come and say, “hey, why not use this instead?” or “this is way behind than xxx”… Every product has its own history, features, targeted markets and hence its supporters. Why don’t we embrace such diversity and respect those who have contributed their efforts on what they believe? 2005-10-25 7:39 am iwbcman Amanda, you must be new here Once, in a blue moon, there is actually competent discussion of the subject matter of the post. Although extraordinarily seldom there are *gasp* moments when one can actually read these articles and come away the wiser for it. This of course only happens when the zealots and trolls are asleep and given the global nature of participation in these forums it predicting when they are asleep is rather difficult. Respect is something which does not exist in an atmosphere of anonymity. The ‘facelessness’ of those participating in such discussions precludes the devlopment of the rule-giving boundary-maintaing function present in the face to face encounter. The effect is quite similiar to large amounts of alcohol- total disinhibition-with no palpable boundaries and no repurcussions or consequences actions are unbound from causation and this results in irresponsible outbursts. There are some rules to be found here: if the article is about linux windows will be discussed if the article is about beos linux will be discussed if the artile is about GNOME KDE will be discussed if the article is about mono patents will be discussed (and when the article is about mysql postgresql will be discussed and so on…. Of course there are exceptions, otherwise I wouldn’t bother reading and contributing here….