Comments on: KDE 4.2 brings the MySQL server to the desktop

By: Bryan Emrys

Bryan Emrys — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:27:31 +0000

And for those of us who use postgresql, having another database running is a waste of my system resources. Goodbye KDE

By: Zenny

Zenny — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:27:33 +0000

Instead of making MySQL every where mandatory, it should have been an optional choice to the user. As the author says, netbooks peeps might not like, so for them Sqllite or even berkleydb which are very small would be a good choice instead of mysql.

Also running mysql would be a drag in the performance? If there was a stripped version of MySql to make performance higher and size lesser mostly for smaller devices, i think such can be provided.

By: chep

chep — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:11:56 +0000

I don’t understand why not just use Berkley DB?
Seems like a perfect fit for their needs.

By: Henrik Ingo

Henrik Ingo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:46:20 +0000

@John: I don’t remember if the KDE apps actually do this, but they could use MySQL Embedded as default, then use MySQL as server in a more “advanced” config.

(And as usual, they can have MySQL server listening only to unix sockets, with network binding disabled. But then they’d have to screw with the default mysql installation somehow, which is bad for all those who really install mysql to do something else than KDE related stuff.

By: John Vincent

John Vincent — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:31:51 +0000

Well this is unfortunate. Requiring mysql to be installed AND running from the get go? Why not provide an option, in the same way that Amarok does now with the caveat that larger databases might need to move from sqlite to mysql.

By: byte

byte — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:05:47 +0000

@stewart: Yeah, drizzle when it becomes more mature, I’m sure might be good – its kernel based approach would be right

@arjen: Amarok for example, did come from using an entirely SQLite backend. There were however deficiencies, like performance with very large databases (lots of music – same story now – lots of PIM information), the fact that if you had many computers that shared one database, SQLite wouldn’t fly.

Could it be schema related? I don’t know.

But I was also surprised to see https://answers.launchpad.net/drizzle/+question/60680 in where the poster wants Drizzle on an iPhone, because there are concurrency issues with SQLite.

Apple, while they encourage the use of SQLite for CoreData, don’t use it themselves for some desktop apps also (there’s a famous one that uses postgresql as the DB of choice).

I’ve also heard people complain that sqlite doesn’t do fsync() well, and this is apparent with one’s usage of popular browsers like Firefox. I’ve not had the time to investigate, and generally have no problems with my browser, so to speak.

However, I can’t comment on SQLite much more, as I don’t have vast experience using it.

By: Arjen Lentz

Arjen Lentz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:50:17 +0000

I think it’s a hideously bad idea for most of these uses to take MySQL.
SQLite would generally do the trick quite nicely.

By: Stewart Smith

Stewart Smith — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:01:52 +0000

or, depending on features used – Drizzle could be the answer.