 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Well, last I checked, MySQL is a "toy database" on a par with Access.
As I said, your info is out of date. You're about four major releases
behind. Now they have distributed clusters and everything. Kind of
"start simple and work up to something worth using."
It still has annoying features, but "toy" it isn't.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> once, you need transactions or you'll end up with a data integrity
> nightmare.
>
> (In this instance, it also needs to be possible to back up the database
> without shuting it down. And to recover if there's a crash. And all
> those other kinds of things.)
Damn you're dense. :-) Really. MySql does all that sort of stuff.
Indeed, I have a process that monitors the hot spare every 30 seconds
and tells me if it gets more than 60 seconds behind the live master. My
read-only heavy queries run against the hot spare instead of the live
read/write database. I'm doing financial transactions that need to audit.
Really. Your information is at least 5 years out of date. You're
complaining that you just wish Windows supported true multitasking.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I was expecting great things. Maybe too great. What I actually found is
> that by default "commit" and "rollback" are no-op, and transaction
> handling is an "optional feature" that you have to explicitly enable.
Honestly, of the 30 or so tables currently in my application, there's
about 5 that need transactional consistency. I don't need it in the
debugging logs. I don't need it in the (equivalent of) web access logs.
I don't need it in the tables that's collecting the real-time feeds off
the various partners, nor off the custom hardware. Those are all
append-only (for the most part) tables.
But where I need it, I turn it on, and take the penalty of speed over
correctness. Enforcing transactions is high overhead if you don't need
it. If all your table write-accesses are to a single row, why would you
want to lock things?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Honestly, of the 30 or so tables currently in my application, there's
> about 5 that need transactional consistency.
Well, my application will probably only be about 5 tables, and it's
simple enough that speed is unlikely to be a problem. So why make things
more difficult than necessary?
> But where I need it, I turn it on, and take the penalty of speed over
> correctness. Enforcing transactions is high overhead if you don't need
> it. If all your table write-accesses are to a single row, why would you
> want to lock things?
Why do you need to lock things to enforce transactional integrity?
Locking is only one (suboptimal) way to solve the problem.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Well, my application will probably only be about 5 tables, and it's
> simple enough that speed is unlikely to be a problem. So why make things
> more difficult than necessary?
Then use the innodb table type, and be happy.
> Why do you need to lock things to enforce transactional integrity?
> Locking is only one (suboptimal) way to solve the problem.
The RDBMS locks things to enforce transactional integrity. I don't do it
explicitly. I merely start a transaction, and the appropriate rows get
locked.
Whatever you do to enforce transactional integrity? It takes resources.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> Well, my application will probably only be about 5 tables, and it's
>> simple enough that speed is unlikely to be a problem. So why make
>> things more difficult than necessary?
>
> Then use the innodb table type, and be happy.
It just worries me that the designers of this system fundamentally think
that transaction integrity is so unimportant that it's not even the
default, that's all.
>> Why do you need to lock things to enforce transactional integrity?
>> Locking is only one (suboptimal) way to solve the problem.
>
> The RDBMS locks things to enforce transactional integrity. I don't do it
> explicitly. I merely start a transaction, and the appropriate rows get
> locked.
That's only one way of implementing transactional integrity. (And, IMO,
not a very good way.)
> Whatever you do to enforce transactional integrity? It takes resources.
Now that at least is a valid statement.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] dev null> a écrit dans le message de news:
47642e2a$1@news.povray.org...
> It just worries me that the designers of this system fundamentally think
> that transaction integrity is so unimportant that it's not even the
> default, that's all.
It's not the default because it's not needed in many database applications.
Frankly, it looks like you just discovered the word "database" yesterday,
fell in love with a couple of buzzwords even though you still have strictly
no idea about what a database it and how it works (this thread started about
*** CSV files *** being used for testing your database). Sorry mate, but you
can't spout utter nonsense about MySQL and Access being "toys" and be taken
seriously after that. Get some experience first.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>> Tell, me. Did you do any research on mySQL before making these claims?
>
> I heard that MySQL is this cool free database that's taking over the
> world. The KNOPPIX CDs contain it, so I thought I'd sit down and have a
> play.
>
> I was expecting great things. Maybe too great. What I actually found is
> that by default "commit" and "rollback" are no-op, and transaction
> handling is an "optional feature" that you have to explicitly enable.
>
> I decided that any database that considers something so fundamentally
> important to be "optional" is obviously not a very serious effort. Then
> I looked at the release notes and it says "yay! we now support unions",
> and I'm like "my God - you're kidding, right?"
>
> At that point, I lost interest.
>
There is a difference between stating that a program can not do
something and asking the p.o-t for their opinion and experience. In
practice the result here is the same, mainly because there are a lot of
friendly people here that have com to know you over the years. IRL your
mileage may vary. One of the main differences IRL is that the former
tends shuts down all communication, while the latter invites the other
to participate in an exchange of ideas.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Damn you're dense. :-)
>
He does program in Haskell.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Frankly, it looks like you just discovered the word "database" yesterday,
> fell in love with a couple of buzzwords even though you still have strictly
> no idea about what a database it and how it works (this thread started about
> *** CSV files *** being used for testing your database).
>
>
You forgot reinventing the wheel.
He's writing a helpdesk! That's IT 101.
If it's for fun, that's one thing. If it's to meet a business need,
then put in one that has been tested, debugged and gained a little
maturity. Your users will thank you, and the person who takes the job
after you will be deligheted not to inherit a undocumented
haskell/oracle monster.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Tom Galvin wrote:
>
>>> I'm going to build [yet another] helpdesk application.
>>>
>>
>> Then mysql is more than adequate to the task.
>
> I disagree.
Hmmm who should I listen to? Gail the professional DBA, who is flown all
over the world for database technology conferences, with many years of
experience, or Andrew? Sorry mate.
>
> I'll take a look. It's probably too complicated though.
>
Glad you are so openminded.
Here's another one that runs on Active Server Pages with an MS Access
Database or MS SQL backend.
http://www.liberum.org/
It's been running at major companies for years with great reliability
and users love it. Some people even modified it to use mysql.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> It just worries me that the designers of this system fundamentally think
> that transaction integrity is so unimportant that it's not even the
> default, that's all.
Know something? The default is also to commit after every statement on
most DBs too. So? :-)
Yes, MySql *started out* tremendously simplified. But it's like you're
complaining about how DOS looses disk clusters if you don't close the
file properly, while evaluating XP.
> That's only one way of implementing transactional integrity. (And, IMO,
> not a very good way.)
Actually, I think there are a number of ways to do it, depending on the
table. You can even use explicit locks to enforce at least the I of ACID
on the non-transactional tables.
>> Whatever you do to enforce transactional integrity? It takes resources.
> Now that at least is a valid statement.
Yah. In my experience, it's about a 5:1 ratio. When I realized that, I
changed most of my tables to non-transactional. There's nothing I'm
running on the tables that isn't idempotent.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 47642e2a$1@news.povray.org...
>> It just worries me that the designers of this system fundamentally think
>> that transaction integrity is so unimportant that it's not even the
>> default, that's all.
>
> It's not the default because it's not needed in many database applications.
Right. Apparently you have a different idea of "application" to what I
have...
> Frankly, it looks like you just discovered the word "database" yesterday,
> fell in love with a couple of buzzwords even though you still have strictly
> no idea about what a database it and how it works (this thread started about
> *** CSV files *** being used for testing your database). Sorry mate, but you
> can't spout utter nonsense about MySQL and Access being "toys" and be taken
> seriously after that. Get some experience first.
Right. And the 3 modules in database design I took during my degree
looking at different transaction isolation levevls and so forth was
probably balony too - along with the 3 A* grades I got for those modules.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin wrote:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>
>> Frankly, it looks like you just discovered the word "database"
>> yesterday, fell in love with a couple of buzzwords even though you
>> still have strictly no idea about what a database it and how it works
>> (this thread started about *** CSV files *** being used for testing
>> your database).
>>
>
> You forgot reinventing the wheel.
>
> He's writing a helpdesk! That's IT 101.
>
>
> If it's for fun, that's one thing. If it's to meet a business need,
> then put in one that has been tested, debugged and gained a little
> maturity. Your users will thank you, and the person who takes the job
> after you will be deligheted not to inherit a undocumented
> haskell/oracle monster.
I'm writing it because I'm fed up of everybody using Excel spreadsheets
to record everything when we could use a real database, that's all. It's
not like I'm planning on building a *large* system...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Know something? The default is also to commit after every statement on
> most DBs too. So? :-)
Really? I've yet to see that...
(We won't go into what a hugely bad idea that would be.)
> Yes, MySql *started out* tremendously simplified. But it's like you're
> complaining about how DOS looses disk clusters if you don't close the
> file properly, while evaluating XP.
So you're seriously telling me that the amaturish little program that's
not even transactional by default has somehow magically become an
enterprise-level product?
>>> Whatever you do to enforce transactional integrity? It takes resources.
>> Now that at least is a valid statement.
>
> Yah. In my experience, it's about a 5:1 ratio. When I realized that, I
> changed most of my tables to non-transactional. There's nothing I'm
> running on the tables that isn't idempotent.
5:1 time or space? On which specific database implementation? (It's not
like it will be the same for all of them.)
Personally, if I had the option if making the system go 5x faster, but
possibly screw up, I'd stick with the slow mode. But apparently that's
just me...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Damn you're dense. :-)
>
> He does program in Haskell.
Sorry. I was hoping that would be taken in the spirit of the
smiley-face. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tom Galvin wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn you're dense. :-)
>>
>> He does program in Haskell.
>
> Sorry. I was hoping that would be taken in the spirit of the
> smiley-face. :-)
It does seem a little uncalled for.
Still, I've been called much worse...
(And at least he didn't threaten to rape my family.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> 47642e2a$1@news.povray.org...
>>> It just worries me that the designers of this system fundamentally
>>> think that transaction integrity is so unimportant that it's not even
>>> the default, that's all.
>>
>> It's not the default because it's not needed in many database
>> applications.
>
> Right. Apparently you have a different idea of "application" to what I
> have...
A program to organize your CD collection counts as an application.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Know something? The default is also to commit after every statement
>> on most DBs too. So? :-)
>
> Really? I've yet to see that...
Funky. It looks like oracle doesn't do transactions by default either:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/berkeley-db/db/gsg_txn/C/enabletxn.html
Oh, and look. Microsoft sql server:
Autocommit mode is the default transaction management mode of Microsoft®
SQL Server™.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa213069(SQL.80).aspx
> So you're seriously telling me that the amaturish little program
> that's not even transactional by default has somehow magically become
> an enterprise-level product?
Yes. Well, no, not magically. By dint of hard work by dozens or
hundreds of people over the course of five or ten years.
"Are you seriously telling me this ameturish DOS thing that doesn't even
support processes has somehow magically become a serious multiuser
enterprise-level operating system?
> 5:1 time or space? On which specific database implementation? (It's
> not like it will be the same for all of them.)
Time.
> Personally, if I had the option if making the system go 5x faster,
> but possibly screw up, I'd stick with the slow mode. But apparently
> that's just me...
Except, as explained, it's not a case of "probably screw up". I have one
processes that inserts independent records into the database, and
another that looks at the most recent record with some particular
attribute. I fail to see how the lack of transactions will damage that.
> Right. And the 3 modules in database design I took during my degree looking at
different transaction isolation levevls and so forth was probably balony too - along
with the 3 A* grades I got for those modules.
You must have a different definition for "experience" than usual.
From another part of the thread...
> It does seem a little uncalled for.
Yah. Sorry. But seriously, dude, when several someones tell you you're
wrong, and point you to the information, and it's written right there in
front of you, arguing that "you don't believe it" makes you seem kind of
dense. Especially when it's not God you're arguing about, but an
open-source well-documented program used by thousands of companies all
over the world.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Tom Galvin wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Damn you're dense. :-)
>>>
>>> He does program in Haskell.
>>
>> Sorry. I was hoping that would be taken in the spirit of the
>> smiley-face. :-)
>
> It does seem a little uncalled for.
>
Andrew has a penchant for doing things the hard way for perceived
elegance. Haskell is but one example.
He also is inclined to disregard the voice of experience, with some
regularity.
If it seems harsh, good. Maybe he will take the blinders of dogma off
for a second and listen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
> I'm writing it because I'm fed up of everybody using Excel spreadsheets
> to record everything when we could use a real database, that's all. It's
> not like I'm planning on building a *large* system...
>
Why reinvent the wheel?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Galvin" <tom### [at] impnospamorg> wrote in message
news:476446ac@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> > Tom Galvin wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm going to build [yet another] helpdesk application.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Then mysql is more than adequate to the task.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Hmmm who should I listen to? Gail the professional DBA, who is flown all
> over the world for database technology conferences, with many years of
> experience, or Andrew? Sorry mate.
Actually Darren wrote that, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
Given a choice, I'd listn to Darren who's worked extensivle (from what he
says) with MySQL. Personally I'm a SQL Server fan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:476457f1$1@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
>
> > Know something? The default is also to commit after every statement on
> > most DBs too. So? :-)
>
> Really? I've yet to see that...
How many database variations have you worked with? Oracle and ....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47645555$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> Get some experience first.
>
> Right. And the 3 modules in database design I took during my degree...
University != experience.
You say that as if you're the only person here who did database courses at
university. You're not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47642e2a$1@news.povray.org...
>
> >> Why do you need to lock things to enforce transactional integrity?
> >> Locking is only one (suboptimal) way to solve the problem.
>
> That's only one way of implementing transactional integrity. (And, IMO,
> not a very good way.)
So, in your vast experience of databases, how would you do it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:476### [at] hotmailcom...
> >
> There is a difference between stating that a program can not do
> something and asking the p.o-t for their opinion and experience. In
> practice the result here is the same, mainly because there are a lot of
> friendly people here that have com to know you over the years. IRL your
> mileage may vary. One of the main differences IRL is that the former
> tends shuts down all communication, while the latter invites the other
> to participate in an exchange of ideas.
And IRL, the former, if you are wrong, can do sufficinet damage to your
reputation that it takes months or longer to recover. Especially if you are
in a position where your word is trusted
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
47645555$1@news.povray.org...
> Right. And the 3 modules in database design I took during my degree
> looking at different transaction isolation levevls and so forth was
> probably balony too - along with the 3 A* grades I got for those modules.
So why are you asking newbie questions about ODBC and keep having these
far-out opinions about things you are visibly ignorant about? Why can't you
find the information by yourself? How much difficult it is to actually look
up the MySQL (or Word, or whatever software or thing baffles you) manual to
verify your claims? How difficult it is to actually listen to what
professionals like Darren and Tom and Gail are telling you? I told you
before: be ignorant is all right, being and acting clueless much less so. If
you want to be taken seriously (and expect more than snarky replies in the
future), don't act like a 15-year old script kiddie.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> Actually Darren wrote that, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
>
> Given a choice, I'd listn to Darren who's worked extensivle (from what he
> says) with MySQL. Personally I'm a SQL Server fan.
>
>
You and Darren have both given him good advice. The quoted portion is
just myself and Andrew, though this thread has grown a few similar branches.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Really? I've yet to see that...
BTW, GIYF. Google for "autocommit" and the name of your database of
choice. It's really *easy*, ya know. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Actually Darren wrote that, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
I'm not sure what I wrote, but I don't think it was anything there
quoted. :-)
> Given a choice, I'd listn to Darren who's worked extensivle (from what he
> says) with MySQL. Personally I'm a SQL Server fan.
I've done a bunch of SQL Server, too. MySql for Linux, SQL Server for
Windows. Depends on the technology talking to the server. I tend not to
use a lot of the fancy stuff that isn't particularly portable (enforcing
privs in the database, returning multiple tables from a query, etc), and
I don't tend to do a whole lot of DBA infrastructure things myself (like
setting up hot fall-over spares etc).
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> It's really *easy*, ya know. :-)
>
Not if you are googlephobic!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:476564ca$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > Actually Darren wrote that, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
>
> I'm not sure what I wrote, but I don't think it was anything there
> quoted. :-)
Thread go so branched, I couldn't work out who said what and where. I knew I
didn't say it though.
> I've done a bunch of SQL Server, too. MySql for Linux, SQL Server for
> Windows. Depends on the technology talking to the server. I tend not to
> use a lot of the fancy stuff that isn't particularly portable (enforcing
> privs in the database, returning multiple tables from a query, etc),
My stuff (fortunatly) doesn't need to be portable, so I can go as fansy as I
like.
> and
> I don't tend to do a whole lot of DBA infrastructure things myself (like
> setting up hot fall-over spares etc).
Me neither. *shudder* I joke that if asked to backup a database, I'd have to
check the manual for the syntax. I'm more a developer that specialises in
performance tuning. Is fun, most days
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin wrote:
> Why reinvent the wheel?
I was hoping that if I make it simple enough, it will be impossible to
misconfigure it. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> University != experience.
True. But my point is that I'm not entirely clueless about what
databases are and how they work. I actually know stuff about this stuff.
> You say that as if you're the only person here who did database courses at
> university. You're not.
I just object to being told I know nothing about databases when actually
I do. I don't claim to be a world-renound expert, but I do know *something*.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Right. Apparently you have a different idea of "application" to what I
>> have...
>
> A program to organize your CD collection counts as an application.
Indeed. A different kind of application to the idea I have in mind. :-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> So why are you asking newbie questions about ODBC
Because I'm not familiar with that particular technology, and I thought
somebody else here might be. (And I was right...)
> and keep having these
> far-out opinions about things you are visibly ignorant about?
I see. So thinking that transactions matter is "far-out" and "visibly
ingorant"?
> Why can't you
> find the information by yourself? How much difficult it is to actually look
> up the MySQL (or Word, or whatever software or thing baffles you) manual to
> verify your claims?
Um... I did? [At least, I read the MySQL manual, and spent some time
using it.]
> How difficult it is to actually listen to what
> professionals like Darren and Tom and Gail are telling you?
When somebody says "oh yeah, transactions aren't really all that
important" when I spent 4 months learning about how important
transactions are, I have to think "hmm, who is right here?"
> I told you
> before: be ignorant is all right, being and acting clueless much less so. If
> you want to be taken seriously (and expect more than snarky replies in the
> future), don't act like a 15-year old script kiddie.
Some days I wonder why I talk at all...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:476457f1$1@news.povray.org...
>> Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Know something? The default is also to commit after every statement on
>>> most DBs too. So? :-)
>> Really? I've yet to see that...
>
> How many database variations have you worked with? Oracle and ....
5 points to Gail Shaw.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:47642e2a$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> Why do you need to lock things to enforce transactional integrity?
>>>> Locking is only one (suboptimal) way to solve the problem.
>> That's only one way of implementing transactional integrity. (And, IMO,
>> not a very good way.)
>
> So, in your vast experience of databases, how would you do it?
Personally I prefer Oracle's lockless multiversion system - although
obviously that has its own set of drawbacks.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:33:54 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>> University != experience.
>
> True. But my point is that I'm not entirely clueless about what
> databases are and how they work. I actually know stuff about this stuff.
>
>> You say that as if you're the only person here who did database
>> courses at university. You're not.
>
> I just object to being told I know nothing about databases when actually
> I do. I don't claim to be a world-renound expert, but I do know
> *something*.
Hey, Orchid's got teeth! :-)
(This is the sort of confidence you NEED to show more often)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4766b26e$1@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:33:54 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
>> Gail Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> University != experience.
>>
>> True. But my point is that I'm not entirely clueless about what
>> databases are and how they work. I actually know stuff about
>> this stuff.
>>
>>> You say that as if you're the only person here who did
>>> database
>>> courses at university. You're not.
>>
>> I just object to being told I know nothing about databases when
>> actually
>> I do. I don't claim to be a world-renound expert, but I do know
>> *something*.
>
> Hey, Orchid's got teeth! :-)
>
So did Audrey (II); friend of Orin Scrivello, DDS.
Barking mad as well as a hot house greenie now, eh?
Uni courses qualify an applicant as much as being a
Microsoft Certified Professional. The former might
make for a trainable PFY for some kindly BOFH.
Rare is the production team that will allow obstructive
newbies to prevent due dates being met.
ObTwainism: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let
people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:34:37 -0800, pan wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4766b26e$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:33:54 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>
>>> Gail Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> University != experience.
>>>
>>> True. But my point is that I'm not entirely clueless about what
>>> databases are and how they work. I actually know stuff about this
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>>> You say that as if you're the only person here who did database
>>>> courses at university. You're not.
>>>
>>> I just object to being told I know nothing about databases when
>>> actually
>>> I do. I don't claim to be a world-renound expert, but I do know
>>> *something*.
>>
>> Hey, Orchid's got teeth! :-)
>>
>>
>
> So did Audrey (II); friend of Orin Scrivello, DDS.
[...]
My point here is that he's actually stood up and said "now wait just a
damned minute" - something that he has needed to do for a while. I don't
disagree with anything you said about the qualifications, theory and
reality are two entirely different things. But it's good that he's taken
the chance to stand up and say something forceful rather than to just say
"oh, OK, I guess I'm dumb" and slink off into the darkness.
It takes practice to stand up and do that. It takes experience to know
when it's the right thing to do, and that's something that comes with
time.
So I still say "well done!"
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4766a720@news.povray.org...
>
> Personally I prefer Oracle's lockless multiversion system - although
> obviously that has its own set of drawbacks.
Yup. Storage/memory
SQL's got that now too. I considered switching one of my main apps over to
use version store rather than locking, but I didn't have a compelling reason
to do so.
Locking is a minimal overhead when transactions are kept short.
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4766a681$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> > and keep having these
> > far-out opinions about things you are visibly ignorant about?
>
> I see. So thinking that transactions matter is "far-out" and "visibly
> ingorant"?
No, but saying that transactions are essential and anything that doesn't
implement them is a toy, on the other hand....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4766a4d1$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > University != experience.
>
> True. But my point is that I'm not entirely clueless about what
> databases are and how they work. I actually know stuff about this stuff.
>
Yup. You know the theory. In practice however things are sometimes done
differently. Not because theory is wrong, but because sometimes shortcuts
are necessary.
In theory, you want to prevent any form of data anomaly from multiple
accesses. In reality, that often reduces concurrency to unacceptable levels,
so some possible anomolies are accepted to get higher throughput (probably
50% of the select statements done in my largest system use the read
uncommitted isolation level)
In theory, all tables should be at least 3rd normal form of Boyce-Codd
normal form. In reality, you will get tables that are intentionally in 1st
or 2nd normal form.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4766a720@news.povray.org...
> Personally I prefer Oracle's lockless multiversion system - although
> obviously that has its own set of drawbacks.
oh, btw, Oracle also uses locks.
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/consist.htm#i
5704
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I just object to being told I know nothing about databases when actually
> I do. I don't claim to be a world-renound expert, but I do know
> *something*.
Nobody is claiming you know nothing. We're just claiming that you're
making incorrect claims about database systems that are easily checked,
and then basing vehement opinions on said incorrect information.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> My point here is that he's actually stood up and said "now wait just a
> damned minute" - something that he has needed to do for a while.
Does that make him a triffid? ;-)
> So I still say "well done!"
True. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> In theory, you want to prevent any form of data anomaly from multiple
> accesses.
Or, in my examples, you only have one writer, and that writer is doing
atomic writes, and no reader looks at multiple records in one
transaction. So what's there to transactionify?
I have another table, where I have multiple processes going thru it,
doing what it says to do, each step taking maybe 10-30 seconds. Rather
than using a transactional table, I do things like
SELECT * from to_do where state = 3 limit 10
then for each of those rows, I do
UPDATE to_do SET state=4 WHERE id=$id AND state = 3
then I check if the num_rows_affected > 0, and if so, I know I'm the one
that changed that row. Just as an example. If the rows affected was
zero, someone else changed that specific ID.
A bit kludgey, I'll admit, but better than holding a transactional lock
on the table for 30 seconds at a time.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I see. So thinking that transactions matter is "far-out" and "visibly
> ingorant"?
No. Insisting that MySql is a toy that doesn't have them, even after
being told your information is long out of date, is "visibly ignorant". :-)
> Um... I did? [At least, I read the MySQL manual, and spent some time
> using it.]
And you missed the part about multiple users and the "Begin transaction"
statement?
> When somebody says "oh yeah, transactions aren't really all that
> important"
We said "they're not always important", not that they're not really
important.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Personally I prefer Oracle's lockless multiversion system - although
> obviously that has its own set of drawbacks.
There's also optimistic locking. I think MySql implements a number of
these techniques, depending on what you ask for. There are anumber of
levels of isolation in standard sql, which mysql implement.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
