php-windows Digest 17 Apr 2001 08:22:33 -0000 Issue 548
Topics (messages 6776 through 6779):
Re: MySql pconnect
6776 by: Plutarck
6777 by: Svensson, B.A.T.
mysql-connections problems
6778 by: Jens Gustafsson
Re: Regarding TTf support for php_gd.dll
6779 by: Wenz Christian
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I have hard to see how this speed issues could be related to the
> fact that MySQL does not provides you with stored procedures?
>
> In what way do you suggest to say that a SELECT statment or an allocation
> of a connection would be slower just because the RDBMS provides you with
> stored procedures? Please explain...
I didn't mean to say that MySQL shouldn't provide stored procedures. If it
doesn't hurt speed, I agree that it should allow such an option. Same with
transactions.
Furthermore I'd like more access restriction abilities, such as restricting
the amount of requests/dataflow/connections a certain user can make over a
given amount of time.
What I meant to say was that I disagree that MySQL isn't a "good" RDBMS.
However I agree it can and should be better than it is. But because it could
be better does not mean it isn't "good" as it is.
It may not be feature rich, but it's not missing features that majorly
effect it's viability.
The problem here is I believe we are using a different definition of
quality. For me, something is "good" as long as it does what I want it to
do. I have no current need for stored processes or transactions, so I
wouldn't really care if it had it or not.
>From a link on that article I gave, about MySQL:
"MySQL is a fundamentally different product from Postgres or InterBase, with
different strengths and primary uses. It's a basic, stripped-down database
that quickly serves up data to limited numbers of users. Its fast read
performance, along with easy integration with Web scripting languages such
as Perl and PHP, make it a favorite among Webmasters. MySQL is well suited
to processing simple data on Web sites and a popular choice for building
fairly low-traffic sites. The project recently moved from a rather
constrained licensing scheme to the full GNU Public License (GPL) favored by
many open-source projects, and has started to add elements of other existing
software to address the feature gap it faces with PostgreSQL and InterBase."
With exception to the fact I believe that MySQL is perfectly capable of
supporting high-traffic sites, from that less-than-appealing description I
still consider MySQL to be "good". If it does what I want it to, it's
"good".
But because MySQL apparently doesn't do what you want it to, I can see why
you don't think it's so "good" ;)
--
Plutarck
Should be working on something...
...but forgot what it was.
""Svensson, B.A.T. "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
27E647E5629ED211BF78009027289C630288B34E@mail1">news:27E647E5629ED211BF78009027289C630288B34E@mail1...
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Plutarck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:53 AM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Re[2]: [PHP-WIN] MySql pconnect
> >
> >
> >As expressed in the article, the question is what the database
> >was designed to actually "do".
>
> Well. Dear Plutark. The author are talking about a design of an INSTANCE
> in the database in this case, not about the RDBMS it self - which I were
> talking about.
>
> >MySQL creates quick connections, responds to SELECT statements as fast as
> >anything can, has a small footprint, and does not require any special
fees
> >to use it. And yes, it's open source. For the vast majority of web sites,
> >MySQL is an absolutely perfect fit.
>
> I have hard to see how this speed issues could be related to the
> fact that MySQL does not provides you with stored procedures?
>
> In what way do you suggest to say that a SELECT statment or an allocation
> of a connection would be slower just because the RDBMS provides you with
> stored procedures? Please explain...
>
> >But if you are a bank or running a real-time game that requires player
data
> >to be saved constantly, for instance, something like Oracle is what
you'll
> >need (for now).
>
> You can use any RDBMS with sufficient functionality to do that "banking
> thing".
> It is "just" a matter of planning strategies for your design of your
> database
> system and the database schema of that database system.
>
> >But most people just don't _need_ transactions. However, MySQL is
planning
> >to add support for such things in later versions. You have to keep in
mind
> >that MySQL is new compared to Oracle. It makes sense that it has a
smaller
> >amount of features.
>
> Who did mention Oracle? I didn't.... My original statment was:
>
> "MySQL is even a worse RDBM's than I thought"
>
> Anyhow: If I want to run Formula-1, then I don't buy a Vas Lada, just
> because
> most people don't want to run fast. Just because "most people just don't
> _need_ transactions", doesn't implies that MySQL is a good RDBMS! And
that's
> my
> point! MySQL is not a suitable RDBMS system in general, and from that
point
> I made my conclusion stated above.
>
> >And on an unrelated issue, down with bloatware :)
>
> Excuse an ignorant person, but I didn't get that one?
>
> --
> PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>The problem here is I believe we are using a different definition of
>quality. For me, something is "good" as long as it does what I want it to
>do.
Ok, I understand what your arguments boils down to now (but my definition
is actually exactly the same as yours.... ;). Let me refine my self:
I did compare MySQL towards other RDBMS-engines and the general
functionality
you may suspect to find within them, not towards a specific application. In
this respect, MySQL are more worse than I first believed.
But on the other hand, if we should compare "goodness" towards application,
Yes, then I do agree with you, that for some applications MySQL might not
only be a good solution, but even the best choice!
But for my considerations, after I read that article. MySQL is definitely
out
of question for potential DBMS - I been suspecting this before, but for
other
reasons. The article I read just made the final touch to convince me in
my intuitive conclusions about MySQL's performance.
>I have no current need for stored processes or transactions, so I
>wouldn't really care if it had it or not.
Hmm... I could fill a book as an argument against such attitude. :)
But... no time today. :)
Regards,
Anders - who has to concentrate more on the rewriting of a database
loader now....
Hi !
I have a mysql-connection problem.
I have run pws, php3 and mysql on win2000 for a while now and it has worked
just fine. Until yesterday that is.
Now php wont connect to the mysql-server. And i cant figure out whats wrong.
It doesnt matter if i install mysql as a service or run mysqld.exe or
mysqld-nt.exe.
I also have myODBC installed and through that i can connect to the
mysql-server, I can also connect with mysql.exe.
I get the following error-msg from php:
"Warning: Can't create IP socket (10091) in ..."
Can someone please help before they have to put me in a room with padded
walls? :)
/ Jens Gustafsson
Hi,
> I am working on a NT Workstation.. (PWS)
> When trying to use the function ImageTTFBBox() or ImageTTFText() I
> get the following error:
> Warning: Could not find/open font in so and so page and so and so
> line...
works for me.... maybe you provided a wrong path? Could you send us a
simplified example ?
Regards
Christian
