> It seems MySQL just dropped the ball on
> the free version of their product, and it
Not sure what you mean. I can download their latest versions without
any trouble.
The point was they are not going to the effort to roll binary releases, if you can find binaries for 5.0.33 on their community download page then point it out.
http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html
They are not there, just source downloads. In other words they dropped the ball, in my opinion.
Where is this announcement? They don't need to drop either engine, as
both are GPL. MySQL as a group was never too hot with BDB. As for
InnoDB, if Oracle acts up, the GPL allows MySQL or any of its community
Your correct, I misspoke about an announcement regarding InnoDB. It was actually speculation from the community.
members to fork out a separate version. SolidDB and Falcon are just
storage engines, which is quite a smart architecture for MySQL to
follow. There's an interesting discussion about ReiserFS vs MySQL
I don't actually agree that it is a smart architecture. BDB, InnoDB, SolidDB, etc all require separate shared memory areas for caching. It just isn't efficient use of memory.
more useful it will be to different audiences. Meanwhile, it is unclear
what the goofs at Oracle have in mind for their two acquisitions.
Not sure why you think anything is up their sleeve, other than they would like to be more competitive in the embedded marketplace and offer a larger product portfolio. The problem is Oracle Database is trying to serve a much different market than TimesTen, BDB, and InnoDB. Oracle Database is trying to serve high availability & fault tolerant enterprise markets, and they do it very well in my book. TimesTen is trying to serve a high-performance market, BDB is a light-weight (small device) embedded market, and InnoDB is more of an larger device (PC-based, perhaps) embedded market.
I know that since Oracle has acquired BDB, they have added multi-versioning. I was never really impressed with BDB embedded in MySQL, but who knows if that is how it was implemented or what. BDB in general seems to perform well.
Chad
http://www.postgresqlforums.com/
