This thread on the Boston MySQL User Group Board is getting interesting:
(From the original poster:)
I think that nonequivalence comes from the past when the data sharing was a
rare situation. The data changes were always initiated by application and it
always knew about those changes. Now the situation is different. When the data
are shared between multiple remote applications you have to notify other
interested parties about those changes.
Currently databases are mostly used as “pull” components. If they had standard
“push” functionality they could compete with messaging systems with the advantages
of automatic data persistence and powerful query language.
Well, and that’s the problem — the paradigm *has* changed. MySQL is fast and reliable because it does NOT put things like messaging into their database, which Oracle and SQL Server do. A database is not a messaging system, it’s a database.
What effect would notification that there have been changes have on MVCC? I do wish there was a “pull” way to check if the data has changed.
The paradigm change of the application managing the schema causes this. I do not believe messaging is the correct way to handle this problem.
Consider the parallel to source code version control. Much like MVCC, you check out code, change it, and commit the code. Unlike many source code version control systems, though, MVCC (“data version control”) does not have the equivalent of an “update” command, except for doing another pull from the database. It would be great if there was an easy way to do a “diff” of what’s in the database versus what the application is changing, but that seems like it would be a programmatic thing (function or method), not a database thing.
And consider the database overhead and bandwidth….instead of just running queries, MySQL would have to somehow keep track of which thread has what data, and then notify every single thread that has that data, that it’s changed. The applications will have to be written to keep threads open longer, which will consume lots of resources. That’s lots more overhead for the database, and much more bandwidth, because there may be instances of the application that are using data that they do not care if it changed….so the messaging system would be wasting bandwidth, sending messages to instances that do not care. Although that could be mitigated by the application keeping a thread open when it cares about whether or not the data has changed.
Then again, I’m not fond of managed schema in the application…or at least, when the developers write that code. Seems to me it should be the DBA writing that code. It’s *very* useful for data consistency and integrity, which is a function of the DBA, not a developer.
What effects do you see the managed schema having on databases? Who should be responsible for writing a managed schema? Should a managed schema be used for database consistency within an application? Where is the line drawn between the application putting the required information into the database, and the database’s job of maintaining consistency and integrity?
It’s somewhat ironic, since for a long time MySQL advocated using the application to ensure the consistency and integrity (ie, before MySQL had a storage engine with foreign keys and transactions).
I often say that the biggest reason MySQL is a widely used database is because it is fast. A fast database can be complemented by an application that adds the features the database is missing; but a slow database that is full-featured cannot be made faster by an application. So it worries me when folks request very specialized systems such as a messaging server (or ANY “push” system) into the database, because that could be easily done with a “pull” mechanism, only using the bandwidth needed by the instances of the applications that care. Otherwise, it will end up adding Microsoft-level bloat to a really nice and fast program.