Talk:MySQL/Archive 1

Questions
I have a lot of questions:

What is MySQL's default port?
 * 3306 TCP

Does MySQL support the full SQL command set?
 * No --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Does it support indexing?
 * Yes. Depending on the specific configuration or feature, B-tree, R-tree, T-tree and bitmap indexes are used. B-trees are the primary form of index. --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Is there an ODBC driver available?
 * Yes. There is also a JDBC driver along with many other APIs, including C, C++, Perl DBI, Python, Ruby, Common Lisp, Matlab, etc. --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Is there a MySQL-specific implementation of SQL commands, as with other major RDBMS platforms?
 * MySQL does use a variant of ANSI standard SQL (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Extensions_to_ANSI.html and http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Differences_from_ANSI.html) --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
 * MySQL can be made more standards compliant by enabling the ANSI mode (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/ANSI_mode.html) --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

IS the platform scalable? Can it support multi-processing?
 * MySQL is a threaded application that supports multiple processors --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Is there an original author?
 * Monty Widenius, who currently is one of the owners and CTO of MySQL --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Does MySQL Replication allow the slave server to delay the execution of the binary log by a certain amount of time, say 24 hours to act as a failsafe against the accidental destruction of data? DavidPesta 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not natively. It's possible to script this by start/stopping the slave.

NPOV
This page could use some NPOV editing. The database is described as "fast", but fast is a relative term. It should be qualified by benchmarks, comparison to other database engines, or at least discuss which types of operations it performs particularly quickly. Regarding transactions and other recent features; the article should specify the version numbers at which features were added. Since transactions are only supported on certain types of tables, this should also be mentioned. It wouldn't hurt to mention Monty Widenius; isn't he at least one of the primary developers?


 * Please, go ahead and make the additions. --AxelBoldt

Anytime we discuss specific software packages, we have to do it objectively as third-party reviewers, rather than let the article sound like sales copy.


 * The only independent benchmark that compares MySQL to other major databases was published by eWeek/Ziff Davis in 2002. It compares DB2, MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server and Sybase. The article can be found at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

MySQL's InnoDB tables have transactions at the row level. MySQL's MyISAM tables have a table lock. There is a demonstrable performance difference between the two for various types of transactions. It is easy to mix the table types within a Web site. You can have read oriented content delivered from MyISAM tables and use InnoDB tables for your billing component. Several speed tests show MyISAM to be about three times as fast as PostgreSQL for read oriented work. The transaction oriented InnoDB tables may come in at the same speed as PostgreSQL as they do similar things. You definately need MySQL table types specified in benchmarks.

Transaction oriented databases including PostgreSQL and InnoDB often use journalling as a way to handle sudden system failure. Some *nix file systems implement their own journalling to avoid the black screen of death you see when you *nix Web server restarts after a failure. If you use both a journalling file system and a journalling database then you duplicate effort which retards performance. The general recommendation is to use a journalling file system for everything except the disk partitions that contain your journalling databases. You need benchmarks that specify the use of journalling at file system and database level.

My own tests of database based Web sites show that MyISAM tables are many times faster, nine or more times faster, than the full fat transaction oriented databases because there is both less disk activity and less use of memory. While the memory issue does not mean much when you run 20 page accesses together on the latest hardware loaded with the maximum memory, it does make a difference when you have 2000 page accesses on an older server at your local ISP. Memory usage should be specified in benchmarks. --Peter

It is less than forthright to delete or undermine fair criticisms on the grounds that the underlying issues are fixed in a forthcoming, presently unstable, release. It smacks of the reputation-management problems that I thought MySQL had overcome -- for instance, claims in past versions of the documentation that referential integrity constraints were "for lazy programmers", or that transactions were unnecessary as they could be emulated reliably in application code (which is false). The article should focus on the released software, with history and planned improvements as asides. --FOo 22:18, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is less than forthright to imply criticisms were deleted when they weren't! What criticisms were deleted? What does this 'it' that 'smacks of the reputation-management problems' have to do with the article? You mention the past criticisms and then claim the article should focus on the current version? A problem with the article was that it was confusing and mistaken in its comments about features/missing features. It didn't specifically mention which version these comments applied to - previously the article seemed to imply that MySQL does not support foreign key integrity in the current version, which is not the case (if you choose InnoDB tables). That problem with the article has been fixed, with additional facts added. Feel free to add more about the past criticisms and more more details about the current lacks to the appropriate sections. The article could do with more detail on MySQL's unconvincing early attempts to squirm out of the need for transactions/ref.integrity. And more details about the differences between InnoDB and MyISAM tables (then, now and in the future!) would be useful too. It could do with details about the relationship with SAP as well. I agree with the earlier comment too about the word 'very' - should be taken out and context substantiated by benchmarks.


 * Heh. The joke at MySQL about transactions is that at first we tried to convince Monty that he was wrong about transactions. This failed and we then managed to convince him that everyone else was wrong, but that they still wanted transactions. This seems to have worked. ;) More seriously, like most projects, we exist to serve the needs of our users. While Monty did used to consider transactions a waste of time, lots of users making a solid case for transactions, combined with a fast and robust transactional engine for us to use changed his mind. --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Removed a criticism
I removed ''Another section claimed that transaction support would be useless since it would not prevent data loss if the database server lost power. '' after checking the cite. The claim is inconsistent with the cite given. Please read (fixed link to the same thing, I think) before continuing. They do not say that transactions are useless. What they say is that they provide other ways to accomplish the same goals, such as using lock tables or atomic updates. The merits of that position are debatable but it's not the same as suggesting that they made the obviously wrong statement which I removed. Something about this might be very useful in a history of MySQL section but it doesn't seem very appropriate for the main body of the article now it's out of date information. Jamesday 00:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Also, you can find the most up-to-date information at the main MySQL website, rather than at a mirror - which can be days or years out of date. --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

And another one
I removed ''One section, entitled "Reasons NOT to use Foreign Keys constraints" (sic) claimed that relational-integrity constraints "make life very complicated" and that their only useful purpose is to allow client software to diagram the relationships between database tables. Since this claim contradicted basic principles of relational database design, they brought MySQL under ridicule from database experts.'' Please read the linked text before continuing. They cited reasons for including them as ''it gives ODBC and some other client programs the ability to see how a table is connected and to use this to show connection diagrams and to help in building applications. ... At a later stage we will implement the foreign key constraints for application that can't easily be coded to avoid them. '' It's fine to criticise MySQL but please do it without misrepresenting their statements or selecting only the most ridiculous and misleading portion of them - we're an encyclopedia, not a press release by their competitors. Jamesday 00:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm the person who added that text (and returned it, somewhat toned down, just now) and I don't think you're representing it fairly. I'm certainly not a "competitor" of MySQL's -- I'm simply trying to fairly represent the fact that MySQL did have false and misleading material in its previous manuals. That is, presumably, the reason they removed that material after it came under fire. I think it's important to point out that these passages in the manuals (and supporting comments made by MySQL people in the press and forums) were a large part of why database gurus did ridicule MySQL. --FOo 01:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * To clarify -- I think it's important to preserve not only the fact that MySQL AB formerly made certain claims which they have since ceased to make, but also the fact that these claims were materially false. This isn't a matter of "point of view" -- I don't think anyone from MySQL AB would now dispute the assertion that transactional integrity is a valuable feature (after all, they did add it to their product). Rather, it's a matter of explaining why (older versions of) MySQL drew certain criticisms: not only were certain ACID features missing, but the MySQL people made erroneous claims in defense of these absences -- not "we haven't gotten around to implementing this yet" but "this is harmful, you should not want it" -- which claims they subsequently ceased to make, and implemented the missing features. --FOo 01:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * While I hate to see us publicly flogged for past mistakes, the information presented is not really inaccurate. In the past, Monty found the implementation and use of transactions and referential integrity to be flawed. However, as a company and community that now serves a lot of different users needs, we know that it is what our users need, rather than what how our lead developer would use the product, that matters most. --fweep 06:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

brands inside article
We don't need to include the brands inside the article. They are listed at the bottom. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 00:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Suggested edits
Given my lack of familarity with WikiPedia and my association with MySQL, I have made a set of suggested edits here, rather than on the main page. I will suggest additional enhancements after getting my toes wet here. --fweep 07:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

MySQL is a computer software product, a cross-platform, multithreaded, multi-user, SQL (Structured Query Language) relational database management system. MySQL is distributed as either free software/open source software under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License, or is sold as proprietary software. MySQL is a key component of the LAMP application stack.


 * HP now officially certifies and supports MySQL on some of their platforms. This is the extent of the arrangment. --fweep 07:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Unlike other free software and open source projects such as Apache or PHP, MySQL is owned and sponsored by a single for-profit firm (called MySQL AB). The company develops and maintains the system, selling support and service contracts, as well as non-GPL-licensed copies of MySQL, and employing people all over the world who communicate over the internet. MySQL AB owns the MySQL trademark and complete copyright on the MySQL codebase. Two Swedes and a Finn founded MySQL AB: David Axmark, Allan Larsson and Michael "Monty" Widenius.

Despite the widespread pronunciation of "SQL" as "sequel," professionals generally pronounce "MySQL" as "my ess-que-ell," not "my-sequel."

I added a section in the Distinguishing Features section. I think it makes a little clearer the types of storage engines, and that they must be compiled in for 5.0. Primary source for information is. I'm following the Be Bold guideline, but want to point out that I am currently working for Solid Information Technology, so I'd like to hear opinions about this edit. --Jonathan Cheyer 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Platforms
MySQL works on many different platforms&mdash;including AIX, BSDi, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Linux, Mac OS X, NetBSD, OpenBSD, OS/2 Warp, SGI IRIX, Solaris, SunOS, SCO OpenServer, SCO UnixWare, Tru64, Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP, and more recent versions.


 * Struck the open source reference - it is clearly stated above the MySQL is FLOSS --fweep 07:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Programming languages
Programming languages&mdash;which can access MySQL databases&mdash;include C, C++, Eiffel, Smalltalk, Java/JDBC, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, and Tcl; each of these using a specific API. An ODBC interface called MyODBC also exists which allows additional programming languages that support the ODBC interface to communicate with a MySQL database. MySQL uses ANSI C as its "native" language. The JDBC driver is also a native, pure-Java implementation.

Uses
MySQL is popular for web applications and acts as the database component of LAMP.

The latest production version
As of 2004, MySQL offers production version 4.0. It includes the following features:
 * A broad subset of ANSI SQL 99, as well as extensions
 * Cross-platform support
 * Independent storage engines (MyISAM for read speed, InnoDB for transactions and referential integrity)
 * Transactions
 * SSL Support
 * Query caching
 * Replication
 * Full-text indexing and searching
 * Embedded database library

It does not include the following features:
 * Cursors
 * Sub-QUERIES (or nested QUERIESs)
 * Stored procedures
 * Triggers
 * Unicode/UTF-8 support
 * Views

The development version
As of 2004, the development version, Version 4.1, includes support for the following features:
 * Sub-QUERIES
 * UTF-8 support
 * Support for geographical data (OpenGIS)
 * Multi-statement queries

Future releases
MySQL 5.0 will contain support for the following features:
 * Stored procedures
 * Triggers
 * Cursors
 * True VARCHAR support
 * Easier GIS access

MySQL 5.1 will contain support for:
 * Foreign key support for all table types
 * Online backup
 * Fail-safe replication
 * Column-level constraints
 * Views

Criticisms of MySQL
Early versions of MySQL included few standard DBMS features, and the current production version still lacks many properties found in other SQL RDBMSes. This has led some database experts, such as Chris Date and Fabian Pascal, to criticize MySQL as falling short of being a RDBMS. 


 * Note the change to RDBMS from DBMS. Anything that manages a structured data file is a DBMS - being a RDBMS has a larger set of constraints. As for dbdebunk, what DBMS claiming to be a RDBMS hasn't Fabian taken a potshot at? --fweep 07:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Many of the early criticisms have been remedied in later versions of the software, including the lack of transactions and relational integrity constraints. These are features necessary to support the "ACID properties" for relational databases, which allow the RDBMS to ensure that client applications cannot interfere with one another or insert inconsistent values. Other criticisms include MySQL's divergence from the SQL standard on the subject of treatment of NULL values and default values. 


 * Interestingly, the MySQL gotchas provided a very excellent and documented set of bugs or features that users found confusing. AFAIK, most of these are addressed in the current alpha trees.

Earlier versions of the MySQL manual included claims that certain essential missing features were useless or even harmful, and that users were better off without them. One section, entitled "Reasons NOT to use Foreign Keys constraints" (sic) advised users that relational-integrity checking was difficult to use and complicated a database application, and that its only useful purpose was to allow client software to diagram the relationships between database tables. Another section claimed that a DBMS lacking transactions can provide as reliable of data-integrity assurances as one supporting them -- conflating the issue of transactional integrity with that of saving data when the database server loses power. Since these claims contradicted basic principles of relational database design, they brought MySQL under ridicule from database experts. These claims have since been removed in more recent versions of the manual, and MySQL today supports the previously-dismissed features of relational integrity checking and transactions.

Critics find MySQL's popularity surprising in the light of the existence of other open-source database projects with comparable performance and in closer compliance to the SQL standards. MySQL advocates reply that the program serves its purpose for its users, who are willing to accept the program's limitations (which decrease with every major revision) in exchange for speed, simplicity, and rapid development.


 * Heh. As one of the prime MySQL advocates, I often reply that usability is our killer feature. --fweep 07:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Some users have also criticized MySQL AB's position on the licensing of the software.

Licensing
Both the MySQL server software itself and the client libraries are distributed under the GNU General Public License. According to MySQL AB's interpretation of the license, this forbids users from writing proprietary software which uses a MySQL database without obtaining a separate commercial license. This is in contrast to many GPL-licensed server projects in which only proprietary modifications of the server software itself are prohibited.


 * We don't go that far! We do always recommend that proprietary software use a proprietary version of MySQL, but it is not a requirement of the licensing. Instead, any derivative or collective work that includes GPL-licensed MySQL software must also be GPL-licensed (or under one of a set of various other licenses that are primarily FLOSS). --fweep 07:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Some users have independently continued to develop an earlier version of the client libraries, which was distributed under the less-restrictive Lesser General Public License. 

Wikipedia on MySQL
In August 2001, a test version of the Wikipedia software using PHP and MySQL appeared; in January 2002 it became the new software running Wikipedia. See the MediaWiki page. In May 2003, this codebase underwent an upgrade to MySQL version 4.0.12 from the previous version 3.x.

Date handling?
Jamesday, you changed the article text to read:


 * Its handling of dates allowed invalid dates to be stored

Are you sure that this MySQL gotcha is no longer true? (It still applies in the 4.1.3 installation I have handy). Neilc 08:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * MySQL has been introducing switches controlling how it handles may of the standards-related issues. Some of those are in the date area and cause it to not use its relaxed rules. Some details at using date. Much more at Server SQL modes. This way the defaults won't break existing applications when their servers are upgraded (a major concern with 5 million or so installations) but those who want strict enforcement can get it. Jamesday 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Needs some clarification also: it says "date" but the examples appear to be "datetime" or "timestamp". If it is still valid, it should be specifying the correct field type. Not sure which gotcha is involved though. Please say which ones you found still present (with the test you used), which server versionand which SQL mode you used and we can all test and find out and avoid disagreeing when we can test instead. 4.1.3 is a pretty old (13-14 months, 10 versions) beta, not ever a production version. Should probably try 4.1.13 (and a nod to the future with 5.0.11 would be useful, probably, since 5 isn't that far away and we'll need to update for it when it's released). Jamesday 03:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the MySQL docs on dates and times, "Starting from MySQL 5.0.2, MySQL gives warnings/errors if you try to insert an illegal date.". So I think it should still be present tense. Turnstep 20:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be - don't know how I missed that. The ability to store a day beyond the last day in a month with less than 31 days is still present in 4.1.13a. So until 5.0 is fully out, it's current. Jamesday 04:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Even more recent?
The article says: "...Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and more recent versions of Windows.". How many more recent versions of Windows than Windows XP are there?


 * Windows Server 2003, for one. —FOo 03:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of MySQL & a little NPOV
How about getting some information together dealing with the history of MySQL. Perhaps this should follow the model used by the entry for PostgreSQL. I think it helps with the NPOV all of the SQL database entries followed the same format. --164.82.144.3 21:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The page for SQL indicates that the ANSI-standard pronunciation is "S-Q-L" not "Sequel". --FOo 19:21, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Despite the widespread pronunciation of "SQL" as the word "sequel," MySQL AB recommends that "MySQL" be pronounced as m&#299; &#283;s-ky&#333;&#333;-&#283;l, not m&#299; s&#275;'kw&#477;l.
 * Don't we usually use IPA and SAMPA to designate pronunciation? I'm not even sure what system this is.


 * It looks like the phonetic spelling used to describe pronunciation in some American dictionaries. Ick. --FOo 15:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I put in what I knew... old American English standard (silly me, this is the English Wikipedia). I know it was "wrong", but I don't know IPA/SAMPA and don't have time to learn it.  Besides, what I put there was more informative than what was there before.  Be bold, change it to IPA. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 16:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the others, I put in the way MySQL itself explains how it should be pronounced, since that's the authoritative form, in case either the IPA or Sampa forms differ in some way from the result of the official explanation of the pronunciation. Jamesday 8 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

Manuals
I've removed the link to a (very badly written) attempt at a MySQL manual article, and removed the redlink tempting people to create further manuals. Software manuals belong in Wikibooks, not here. Those that are interested in writing a manual, please feel free to contribute to a GFDL "Using MySQL" manual at Wikibooks. I've added a link to the Wikibooks manual on SQL programming, in an attempt to head off this sort of thing. My preference would be for this article to link to a real MySQL manual, however. Uncle G 12:30, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Logo out of date
The MySQL logo is no longer TM. It's now (R). Needs to be replaced with the later version but it's inappropriate for me to do it. Jamesday 8 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)

Prominent Users - NPOV?
What's with the new "prominent users" section? Looks more like advertising to me. Also, the "with an estimated five million installations" in the first sentence seems oddly out of place. Turnstep 13:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't happen to have estimated use figures for the other databases - if anyone has that I'm interested in seeing it added to them. Same for users - it's good to know who's using things, what for and with what sorts of load. Helps to provide useful context. Neeeds a bit of research but if you're after something to add to PostgreSQL in that section, I think one of the root domain servers uses it. Don't know the load, though. Jamesday 14:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

SCO partnership
The line "various MySQL employees gave what appeared to be the company's position" seems a little unofficial for an encylopedia - we should get the official word from MySQL AB, not unattributed speculation that what some employees say is official company policy. At the very least, an attribution would be good, if even to a usenet post by an employee. Turnstep 11:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's minimal chance of an official MySQL statement or press release on this matter, so (unofficial) employee statements are what are available, even when those accurately represent the official view of the company. I'll point to one or some of them. Jamesday 03:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Licensing still unclear as of 2005
MySql drew a lot of fire for it's licensing policy in the past, and frankly, until they actually explain the licensing in plain english, they will continue to do so. No one seems to be able to answer that simple question: if I develop a web site using mysql as the db, on my own servers, do I need to purchase a license. I've asked that question to officialy MySql trainers, the forums, the newsgroups, and it always drew a blank or a vague answer quoting the licensing page of their website. I think most people would like a yes or a no.

When fweep says "We don't go that far! We do always recommend that proprietary software use a proprietary version of MySQL, but it is not a requirement of the licensing. Instead, any derivative or collective work that includes GPL-licensed MySQL software must also be GPL-licensed (or under one of a set of various other licenses that are primarily FLOSS)", it sounds an awful lot like if you have a web application that's pay subscription-based, do not plan to GPL the source code and are using mysql as the backend, then you should by a commercial license.

Can anyone share some light by editing the article page or replying in this discussion page? Adidas 12:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I can certainly speculate. :) I think the answer to the first question is "no" you do not need to purchase a license. However, keep in mind that it is to MySQL AB's advantage to keep the licensing question as vague (and as unchallenged) as possible. I've heard that their interpretation of the GPL would not stand up "in court", but who knows? Since you are not distributing software, I can't imagine even the weirdest interpretation of the GPL could force you to pay $$ to MySQL AB. You could always switch to a database without licensing ambiguity of course.  Turnstep 00:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The licensing has been clarified a lot over the last year or so, in response to community feedback. There are probably still a few relics nobody has fixed up yet but it's now pretty simple. Sales are really the people to ask about licensing, though. Jamesday 18:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You need some licence. The GPL "Community Edition" license, which costs no money, is usually fine for web sites. You only typically need to think beyond that if you distribute your application to others (letting people use your site does not typically mean that you're distribution your application) or do something like have client applications on end user computers connect to the database via some means other than the web - connecting the remote application to the database server via an IP address wouldn't make the database server a "web server" so you might well need a license for that. Wikipedia, while it's one of the top 50 sites on the net, uses the GPL licensed version of MySQL even though it has more than half a million registered user accounts for the English language version alone. MySQL sales are the people to ask about this. Describe your situation and they will clarify.


 * What you may need or want is MySQL Network, the support service. MySQL Network also provides a commercial license binary if you want that. Up to you to decide how likely you are to need support and what support you think you need.


 * Instead of wondering about licensing saying what you must do, you might also wonder what you should do. MySQL is open source software and somebody has to pay the wages of the development team (not all, just 50 or so of them). This is purely at your discretion but if you're making lots of money via MySQL, you might consider it a suitable thing to do, just as you might support the development of the other tools you use. Jamesday 18:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Free hosts
I have removed FreeSQL from the links because db4free.net was refused from being added.

Both projects do absolutely the same thing, so there is no reason why one should be allowed to be listed and the other one not. My suggestion would be to add both (db4free.net and freesql.org) to the external links.

Also the MySQL 5 blog db4free.blogspot.com was refused from being added - also here I don't understand the criteria why some are listed and others can't be.

Any explainations for that?

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.46.14.170 (talk &bull; contribs).

=
====== I have now added both links again together with some good blogs about MySQL - I hope that's OK now.

Markus Popp

On Portal:Free software, MySQL is currently the featured article
Just to let you know. The purpose of featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain the feature for a week or so. The previous feature was Apache HTTP Server Gronky 04:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Section 4.2- Link to a disambiguation page
In the section "Latest production version", the bullet reading "Full-text indexing and searching using MyISAM engine", links to the disambiguation page for "index". This shouldn't happen. However, I'm not sure what kind of indexing it's referring to, so I didn't change it. Could someone who knows more about it please change it to link to the specific article? E946 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious picture
That picture is hilarious. ha.

Proposal: clean up the criticism page
Hi, I've already started to make a few small modifications to the article. The entire "Criticisms of MySQL" section should receive an overhaul in my opinion. Currently, it mangles historical information with criticism on MySQL AB (the company) with criticism on MySQL (the product). I'd like to add a "History" section and add the historical information related to the product in there. Similarly, I'd like to propose to move historic items and criticism related to the company to the MySQL_AB page instead. In the long run, I'd like to have a more clear differentiation between the two articles. This one should only cover the MySQL Server, nothing else. LenzGr 11:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the historic criticism of MySQL the product belongs here, though perhaps in a separate section than current criticism. I don't see any edits of yours that I object to, though. Did you change your mind? -Slamb 00:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation section
Wouldn't 'mew' replicate the my/mü sound more accurately than 'me'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.110.243 (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the first paragraph under pronunciation extremely unnecessary?

"'MySQL' is officially pronounced as 'My Ess Queue Ell' [maɪ ɛs kjuː ɛl], not 'My sequel' [maɪ siːkwəl] but then again, GUI is officially pronounced 'goo-ee'. The company does not take issue with the pronunciation 'My sequel' or other local variations so long as they don't include MyOracle or MyPosgreSQL. If anyone bothers you about your use of MySequel, just ask them to pronounce 'GUI' and go fly a kite."

Sure, it might be great up until "not 'My sequel'" and then it should just end there. All that stuff about GUI or MyOracle or MyPosgreSQL [sic] or "go fly a kite" sounds like it was written by a 12-year-old kid that is trying to act cool. It's completely asinine and belongs on a blog, not in an encyclopedia.Sam 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This should definitely not be in this article, I'm removing the offending parts now. —The preceding 82.42.176.67 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses MySQL
I know the Wikipedia program MediaWiki uses MySQL. Isn't this worth mentioning in the Prominent users section? Or does this break some Wikipedia rule about mentioning Wikipedia? Gutworth 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is listed in 2005 MySQL Application of the Year winners. Cant see why it cant go in prominent users Reedy Boy 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added it even before reading this comment.--michael180 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing Notes and References
I believe that the main article page is missing the Notes and References section at the bottom. Is this normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.128.74 (talk)


 * It is becoming more common to have references, but its not necessary. Notes even less so Reedy Boy 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Truth to be told, it is critical for Wikipedia articles to reference claims, per the Wikipedia verifiability policy. The article currently does cite references, though, using simple links within the article text &mdash; having a separate section for reference is indeed not important, although people are encouraged to use WP:FOOT for referencing. If you wish to use the footnote system, go ahead and create a references section. -- intgr 10:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

DBI tutorial
I wrote a short tutorial on using Perl DBI at Wikibooks: b:Perl Programming/DBI - Perl Database Inteface.

Currently it only has one example for Oracle. That's the only DBMS with which i had personal experience.

It would be great if someone could add a section about connection to a free database, such as MySQL.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Free?
The notice on this talk page says MySQL is free.

But I can't see the free offer on the MySQL homepage. Can someone direct me to it? Nousernamesleft 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html#downloads -- intgr 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Nousernamesleft 18:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

License criticism section
I think it would make more sense if the criticism of MySQL's licensing practises appeared under the License section rather than the Criticism section. Any objections? - Chris Wood 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved the section. Some of the text there is more about history than criticism or license-related issues, so the page could do with further changes. -- Chris Wood 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is MySQLi?
I've landed on this article by searching for MySQLi (redirected), although this page does not contain a single reference to MySQLi. I wonder what it is. --Sébastien Leblanc ( Talk 08:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a PHP extension AFAIK. Reedy Boy 10:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciations
As explained in the MySQL manuaul, the official pronunciation is the one mentioned in this article, “My Ess Que Ell”. ( http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/what-is-mysql.html ) Quote: The official way to pronounce “MySQL” is “My Ess Que Ell” (not “my sequel”), but we don't mind if you pronounce it as “my sequel” or in some other localized way. So, could we please leave the pronunciation alone? Jerazol 07:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MySQL Application of the Year winners
I think this section should indicate whether the GPL or enterprise license was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.0.100 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

MySQLi
MySQLi redirects here, but this article has no information on it. --208.70.245.209 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a list of BIG users
It would be nice to see a list of major users. I've seen a document which says  Google (Adsense), YouTurbe, Facebook, Wikipedia and some others. It would be nice to see a referenced list of such users, but not a set of ads for small companies that use it. Drkirkby (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

peterl (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Popularity
The article used to say that the popularity of MySQL is "is closely tied to the popularity of PHP and Ruby on Rails". The PHP part is fine, but to say that the popularity of MySQL is tied to Ruby on Rails is absurd. MySQL was a major player long before RoR appeared and today RoR accounts for only a tiny portion of MySQL-based websites. So I deleted |Ruby on Rails" from the sentence. --Daniel Carrera 15 January 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia
The biggest installation of database doesn't mention, strange... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.193.152 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Why are there criticism included in the article talking about issues with non-current versions? Most of these criticisms were addressed in 5.0 which was released two and a half years ago? Macutty (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. WP:BOLD - remove the criticism! --TimTay (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, this is an encyclopedia and history is actually part of what makes the subject worthwhile of being here. The criticism should be placed into context, of course, such as "criticism of 4.x", but it should stay in the article. Otherwise it's not so much an encyclopedia article as it is a here-and-now MySQL page that you might as well have found on an IT blog somewhere. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ham Pastrami. Also believe that having a criticism section is appropriate. 67.189.104.78 (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The tags have been there for a while so I took some action. It makes sense to me to incorporate the criticisms into the product history section rather than a separate section as these criticisms mostly apply to a particular version or versions and a whole section seems unfair to the product which may have had such issues resolved in a later release. You would not want to remove the criticism entirely from the article if a problem gets resolved so it's better to put it in a historical context. As criticisms now exist in the article as part of the history of the product, and not as a separate section, I see no need for the undue criticism tags. If a general criticism arises that applies to the product generally as a whole (not just to a particular release) that can safely go in a separate criticism section. Hopefully, this satisfies everyone's concerns. 82.44.93.55 (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking after reading the product history section that it could probably do with some more positive significant history as well as the criticism I incorporated yesterday, if it is deemed significant enough, just to balance out the criticisms (for e.g. a well-publicised, high-profile performance test that showed MySQL performing better than it's rivals, or something similar). I hope someone can add something if they know of any such. 82.44.93.55 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ownership/Copyright
Two statements in the lead caught my eye: Cander0000 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...MySQL is owned... and sponsored by a single for-profit firm..." - if the source code is under the GPL, what exactly does the firm 'own'?
 * "...now a subsidiary of Sun Microsystems,[4] which holds the copyright to most of the codebase." - again if the source code is under GPL, to what is Sun claiming 'copyright'? (more precisely, to what is the article claiming that Sun is claiming copyright?)
 * They own the copyright for all code, and they license this code under the terms of the GPL. This means that they can, if the want, relicense future versions of the code any way they want. This is also the reason why they can have it under dual licenses. (Released code cannot be relicensed though, i.e. they cannot "unGPL" existing versions) --Isaksavo (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct Dontdeletecontent (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

MySQL Frontends
No much mention of MySQL Frontends? apart from phpMyAdmin in one of the paras there doesn't seem to be any more info. I want to expand the article and add a section on Frontends / GUI tools, or should there be a separate article for this, like MySQL Frontend? -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 06:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Started off with a section for this: MySQL. That describes the major frontends and has to be expanded a lot more, but covers the issue fine for now. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 08:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, if there is even more material on this, one could make it its own article. This would also remove the simple listing of products from the main article which I am not so happy with. Greetings --hroest 16:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great, thanks for your feedback. The other commercial MySQL frontends could be described, but they still seem similar enough to be only listed generally. I've edited the section to read more as an article, and the list is similar to the list of platforms just above the GUI section. Would that do fine for now?


 * I like the idea of describing a few freely available frontends in the main MySQL article since it makes a big difference to every MySQL engineering team, including design, development, server administration and maintenance. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 01:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Forks in Response to the Oracle takeover
The Drizzle project is not a response to the Oracle takeover. It started in 2008 during the MySQL Conference. See |Drizzle History, bottom of the page, for reference. This is way before the merger announcement. MariaDB also existed before the merger announcement, the WP article on MariaDB mentions 2009-01-22 as the inital release date, whereas the Oracle-Sun merger event dates to 2009-04-20. Hence referring to MariaDB and Drizzle as 'forks in response to the Oracle takeover' is clearly wrong. -- Isotopp (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have edited that section to note that the forks were pre-oracle acquisition. Awfief (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My Seek Wool
In reference to this edit, I really think most people's pronunciation of MySQL is more like "my seek wool" than "micey quell." See also SQL. Tisane (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's not what you wrote; you wrote that it's "my sequel". Which is it? kwami (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SQL is commonly pronounced sequel, and the 2nd reference on the page ( "What is MySQL?, MySQL 5.1 Reference Manual") already shows that. If the reference that's needed is for "micey quell", then why is the [citation needed] mark after the "My sequel" pronunciation? At the very least, [citation needed] needs to be moved so it directly follows the pronunciation that's disputed. 97.112.199.245 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It might perhaps be better stated that those who are less familiar with MySQL might use the my sequel pronunciation. If you view the sessions at the MySQL Conference over the years you'll find that My S Q L is the form used by the founders and those users who have encountered them or other members of the community, with my sequel mainly used temporarily by newcomers. Many of those sessions are available for online viewing if you'd like to check for yourself. The "often pronounced" claim is presumably what would need a citation. Jamesday (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

MySQL/Sun
Sun Microsystems announced plans to acquire MySQL AB

Probably needs putting into the article ;)

—  Reedy  Boy  14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I put http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html into the article, hopefully that helps. Awfief (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Need more info on this! As far as I can tell, MySQL Basic is no longer free (and not deprecated). Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/08/oracle_jacking_up_mysql_prices/ Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.19 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Query Language?
Ok, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but I thought "SQL" stood for "Structured Query Language", not "Statistical Query Language" as is currently stated in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

On the official talk page for SQL, there is some debade if it stands for "Structured Query Language" or if it officially has become its own term without expansion, but nowhere in my knowledge or experience is it "Statistical Query Language"

I'm going to update the phrase and link "SQL" to its wiki home --DigitalSorceress (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please watch WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NPOV
I cleaned up two such offending threads. Just a reminder to follow both these guidelines.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A History Section?
I would like to suggest that a history section be added to this topic. The seems to suggest that MySQL went directly from its initial development to ownership by Oracle and completely ignores the support and development provided by Sun Microsystems after they aquired the product and before Oracle aquired Sun Microsystems. jdb (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC) jballotti

Name of the client-server protocol
I only found something like “MySQL Client/Server Protocol”. Does it have a well-known shorter name or abbreviation? (I'd need it for an archtecture diagram labeling the data paths where this protocol is used) :-) --RokerHRO (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Google
"It is also used in very high-scale World Wide Web products including Google and Facebook." No source for that? It's fairly common knowledge that Google primarily (and almost exclusively) uses their own Bigtable instead of MySQL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.137.116 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At least they used to use MySQL, is there any source that says that Google is NOT using MySQL any more? It rather seems like they use Bigtable for certain, specific services like youtube and google maps etc. I am no expert but it would be great to have a source (either way) to verify / falsify this claim. Thanks --hroest 11:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Google uses MySQL for some subsystems, and has contributed patches to the MySQL source. There was a talk by Google people about that at the MySQL Conf and Expo in April 2009, see |High Availability and Scalability Patches from Google -- Isotopp (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And this in summary means that in fact Google.com does not use MySQL and the search engine (could not even have been done in MySQL anyway) is NOT MySQL. Presenting it differently is a blatant lie Yourbane (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)