MySQL and QNX announced that the MySQL database is available for the QNX Neutrino realtime operating system (RTOS) running on x86 processors. Users of the QNX Neutrino RTOS can now integrate MySQL as a high-performance data management system in their embedded applications. In other mySQL news, there are news about the FreeBSD port while for more QNX news head to OpenQNX and QNXZone web sites.
MySQL & QNX Announce Product Compatibility for Embedded Market
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9646
(note from the admin: no copyirght material please, just include the link)
Isn’t PostgreSQL much more mature?
(someone explain it to me if I’m wrong. not too familiar with database systems)
Postgresql, FirebirdSql and SAP-DB are much more advanced and mature than Mysql. MySql is catching up, but it still lack PL/SQL-like procedures and many other things. Transaction support and foreign keys are new, while they have been standard features of other RDBMS for ages.
MySQL offers simplicity compared to many other database products. It is also relatively reliable and fast.
While many other databases have been out longer and have more features, they are much more complicated to use.
MySQL represents the sweet spot of features that a database really needs.
MySQL represents the sweet spot of features that a database really needs.
Well said. You only forgot to emphasize the advantages on speed this (more than enough) ‘sweet spot’ of features provide to MySQL RDBMS. I do like simple and fast, never liked bloat.
I can see how QNX would like to avoid bloat…can’t have that on a nuclear power plant, can we….
MySQL represents the sweet spot of features that a database really needs.
Maybe for x small webstite database where data is only coming from one source anyway and consistancy can be checked there. for a real database you need the more complicated features to ensure the data consistancy.
For most serious applications data consistancy is a million times more important than the speed.
Is there anybody who tried Redhat’s own Database? How good/bad it is compared to MySQl or PostgreSQL?
Red Hat Database _is_ PostgreSQL (precompiled binaries and probably comes with a preoptimized settings), and I believe they have stopped offering this commercial product quite a while ago.
MySQL offers simplicity compared to many other database products. It is also relatively reliable and fast.
While many other databases have been out longer and have more features, they are much more complicated to use.
Some more advanced DBMSes like SAP are indeed complex beasts, but some others are equally (if not more) simple to use. For many people, Firebird/InterBase belongs to the second group. Easy installation, also small footprint, DB stored as a single file, not many parameters to tune, easy maintenance, etc.
MySQL however has been around longer in the Unix/Linux/open source land. It’s simple to build, it was only one of few (if not the only) choices available for many people for years (there was a time for me when I need to choose between MySQL or mSQL — so the choice was obvious), and so virtually every decent programming language has MySQL binding.
That post regarding MySQL on FreeBSD is somewhat old (although the analysis is new) I’m running MySQL 4.0.12 on a dual 866MHz Pentium III system running FreeBSD 4.8 using the rfork()-based LinuxThreads library, and its performance is absolutely stellar. These graphs, for example, are generated on-the-fly directly from MySQL:
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/~autowx/fclwx_plot_display.php
While the performance probably isn’t what it could theoretically be on an NPTL-based Linux system, the level of performance we’re getting is so far beyond what we use it’s really a moot point.