[mythtv-users] Slow MySQL query after delete

[Michael T. Dean]

On 09/04/2007 05:48 PM, f-myth-users at media.mit.edu wrote:
> Actually ("nobody ever expects the..."), the -third- issue, and the
> one I was really alluding to, was the unexpectedly heated reaction
> when someone said, "I want to use a different DB; here are some simple
> things to do that would enable using any DB that complies with certain
> standards, and here are patches to start implementing that," and got
> totally stomped on.  He basically submitted one set of patches and
> then vanished, having apparently decided it wasn't worth his time
> getting yelled at for something that was eventually totally squashed
> by fiat, patches or not---"we'll reject any patches to use anything
> other than MySQL, even if they work," was my impression.  Can't say I
> blame him.  But it -was- a peculiar reaction...
...
> Indeed.  And I think a lot of the snickers are due to MySQL's history
> ("we don't see how to do transactions quickly, so we'll omit them and
> still claim to be a concurrent database", etc), and maybe the snickerers
> aren't totally up-to-date on current MySQL (where they've been forced
> to revisit some of those early decisions), but really, it's not changing
> -that- fast, and for a long time Myth couldn't even -use- the most up-to-
> date MySQL anyway. :)

See, you answered your own question.  (Why won't Myth support other
DBMS's?  Because it's hard enough keeping up support for just one.  :)

Mike