[mythtv-users] Slow MySQL query after delete
drees76 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 5 20:27:45 UTC 2007
On 9/5/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> wrote:
> On 09/05/2007 04:36 AM, David Rees wrote:
> > You really should think about dropping support for anything older than
> > 4.1. What's the point in maintaining anything that the upstream vendor
> > doesn't support themselves?
> Talk to the distros that are currently in use. More than that, go out
> and talk to the people who are still running MySQL 3.23 or ... You may
> want to volunteer to upgrade and support their databases. Otherwise, it
> may seem a bit demanding of you to force them to upgrade.
Who's still running 3.23? What distros? RHEL 4 ships with 4.1, I can't
imagine anyone wanting to run MythTV on anything older than that.
> Besides, technically, 4.0 and 4.1 are both supported. See
4.0 is "Actively" supported until the end of this month. Are there
really any significant number of users using anything older than 4.1?
> > My day job involves writing backend code for high performance
> > websites. While I don't need to write database independant code, I use
> > tools (Java and Hibernate) that allow me to swap backends with a
> > minimal amount of fuss. With Hibernate, all I have to do is swap out a
> > couple configuration lines and the migration is complete, no code
> > change required.
> You're doing the right thing by using Hibernate, but IMHO, blindly
> pursuing "database independence" is far worse than tying yourself to a
> single DB engine. Code is expensive, so code that you don't have to
> write (i.e. code provided by some database-specific functionality) is a
> good thing. Just like using code provided by Hibernate is a good
Definitely. Using Hibernate allows me to write database independent
code without even having to think about it. The Hibernate team does
all the hard work for me.
> Creating your own lesser quality code--lesser quality not
> because of your skills, but because there's no way you have the
> time/budget to spend on creating something from scratch that's as good
> as Hibernate--would be just plain stupid (or arrogant). But, the
> argument for Hibernate (or, at a lower level, JDBC or ...) isn't
> database independence, it's code reuse. The only way that the argument
> for Hibernate could also include database independence is if there's a
> business requirement for database independence. Have you ever even
> asked what the business requirement for database independence is? (And,
> if the business requirement falls into the "insurance" category (in case
> it's too expensive to renew the license, in case the DBMS vendor goes
> out of business, in case the DBMS vendor doesn't provide timely support
> for Windows Server 2008, ...), that's something that Open Source
> software doesn't have to worry about--so, I don't worry about it.)
The primary reason I use Hibernate is that it lets me get away from
thinking about the database and SQL. We can write code faster that is
of higher quality using Hibernate. As a bonus, Hibernate also allows
me to use different databases should it be required or desired.
That is something _any_ project should be worried about, whether it's
Open Source or not.
This is something you yourself is saying MythTV is headed towards -
abstracting away the database! I asked it before - certainly a tool
similar to Hibernate exists for C++? Why build your own database
abstraction framework - that's something that has been reinvented
plenty of times before.
> > Using Hibernate, I've personally swapped backends between MySQL,
> > Sybase and Postgres without changing a line of code.
> However, before doing that, how much testing did you have to do? 3x the
> testing? 9x the testing? When you're working on a project for fun,
> increasing the amount of work required for the most tedious, boring, and
> unappreciated part of the job is not something most want to do.
No more testing than I would have done for any other release. That's
what testing frameworks are for. Any half-way serious project should
have some sort of automatic testing framework.
> But, wait, shouldn't you all be writing the code so it can work on
> Oracle and DB2, also? Shouldn't you write it so it works with Derby and
> Firebird and Ingres and ...
With Hibernate all of those are covered.
> > Certainly something similar exists for C++? I'm not much of a C/C++
> > programmer so I've never looked, but I have used perl DBI libraries
> > for similar jobs (though none very big).
> Feel free to write support for other DB's into Myth. Even if the devs
> don't accept your patches, you have the option to fork (and then
> maintain and test the DB independence on your own).
If I only had the time. :-) My main point is that hopefully this is
something that has been thought of and analyzed properly. Even if
whatever database abstraction framework is chosen doesn't give you
multiple DB support, at least hopefully it will make the task of
embedding MySQL or "hiding" MySQL easier without having to reinvent
More information about the mythtv-users