Comments on: Oracle buys Sleepycat

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:52:00 +0000

See the release notes for 5.1. Disk storage is already there. :)

James Day

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:13:00 +0000

Zak, see http://www.flamingspork.com/blog/2006/02/15/information_schemafiles-querying-disk-usage-from-sql/

(disk based cluster is pretty much already there in 5.1.6, just hammering out the remaining issues)

The feature has been "trickling" out during the 5.1.x alpha/beta releases ;)

By: jim

jim — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:57:00 +0000

disk-based data for cluster is already in 5.1. (indexes still need to find into memory, though.)

brian keeps threatening to add transactions to the archive storage engine. i've thought it would be fun to make the memory storage engine transactional, although obviously you'd be missing that d in acid.

By: Lukas

Lukas — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:39:00 +0000

Doesn't 5.1 reduce the memory requirement to only cover the indexes already?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:36:00 +0000

Currently, in the latest 5.1 (I think), unindexed data was saved on disk in NDB clusters; only indexed data was "RAM only". And even that will change soon.

So, yeah…I think MySQL Cluster could be a good replacement for Oracle-haters. :-P

By: Zak

Zak — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:46:00 +0000

D'oh! Very true. I bet that we see rapid progress turning NDB into a disk-based storage engine, as (last time I looked) it was still a memory-only engine.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:07:00 +0000

NDB :)

The clustered database has transactions, and BDB is virtually unused.