Page 1 of 2
MySQL 5
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:24 am
by alex.barylski
I wonder (I have not worked in freelance or shared market clients for about 2 years now) but how common is MySQL 5.0+ on shared servers these days?
I ask because I am building a software system which currenlty uses default MySQL tables (ISAM?) and they obviously have their pros and cons. Biggest con perhaps, is not supporting forigen keys???
I downloaded several applications which lets you design your schema on the fly and a few allow you to print out the schema which is a real bonus (worth switching tables just for that). So I would like to start using MySQL tables that suport forign key constraints but I am unsure as to why they seem so unpopular in MySQL world? Do any well known applications use these new tables?
Cheers,
Alex
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:22 am
by matthijs
I'd say about 80% of the webhosts with shared hosting I deal with run mysql 5. They're mostly in the range of $50-200/yr hostings
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:27 am
by Darhazer
I think all shared hostings use MySQL 5, as MySQL no longer supports version 4 (extended support ended 2009-12-31. All major hosting companies in Bulgaria use MySQL 5. The one I'm using, have both MySQL 4 and 5, and they encourage all users to move to MySQL 5 and not to use version 4 for 2 years now.
Our shopping cart platform (as well as all projects we are building) use InnoDB tables with foreign keys. But MyISAM is still the default engine in MySQL, even in version 5. And I'm not sure that all hosting companies who run MySQL 5 on their server, have installed the InnoDB engine (although as far as I know, it's included in the default installation)
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:11 am
by alex.barylski
I'd say about 80% of the webhosts with shared hosting I deal with run mysql 5. They're mostly in the range of $50-200/yr hostings
OK cool, those are good enough odds for me.
Although I first read 'month' not 'year' and I kind of swallowed my tongue.
Cheers,
Alex
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:25 pm
by Bill H
Don't assume that because a hosting server provides MySQL 5 that it allows InnoDB tables.
Some do not install that engine because it increases server load, and cost.
Others provide it on some of their servers at a slightly higher monthly cost than other servers.
If foreign keys are important to you don't just check for MySQL 5, check for permission to use InnoDB tables.
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:07 am
by Eran
Some do not install that engine because it increases server load, and cost.
How do you reckon it increases load and cost? for some purposes InnoDB outperforms MyISAM. Amongst other things it uses row-level locking instead of table-level locking making writes much more scalable.
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/200 ... ks-part-1/
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:54 am
by onion2k
pytrin wrote:Some do not install that engine because it increases server load, and cost.
How do you reckon it increases load and cost? for some purposes InnoDB outperforms MyISAM. Amongst other things it uses row-level locking instead of table-level locking making writes much more scalable.
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/200 ... ks-part-1/
MyISAM limits what users can do to mess up their databases, and therefore generates far fewer support calls. That is reason enough for hosting companies to stick with it.
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:49 am
by Bill H
How do you reckon it increases load and cost? for some purposes InnoDB outperforms MyISAM. Amongst other things it uses row-level locking instead of table-level locking making writes much more scalable.
I found this:
"Unfortunately, we cannot offer InnoDB or any other transactional databases on our servers at the moment, due to the overhead that transactional databases produce, and the more complicated nature related to its administration."
I would assume that the
"more complicated nature related to its administration" refers to the additional support calls.
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:07 am
by Eran
MyISAM limits what users can do to mess up their databases, and therefore generates far fewer support calls.
How so?
would assume that the "more complicated nature related to its administration" refers to the additional support calls.
Sounds like the arguments before on why not to provide PHP5 support.
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:17 am
by josh
Business people are idiots. Reducing the costs to the point of not offering any service anymore
Magento uses InnoDb and took oscommerce's market share in only a few months time. Seems like pretty rapid adoption of the software, pretty reassuring to those considering using inno.
And yes innoDb is "harder" to use (because users could restrict themselves from modifying/deleting data and not have the experience of dealing with indirection of having to first release a constraint before making a data change.)
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:42 am
by Bill H
Business people are idiots. Reducing the costs to the point of not offering any service anymore
Well, there's a
"cost vs. feature" consideration in play here. If a hosting company is offering shared hosting, then allowing transactional database process reduces the number of shares one can sell on a server before quality begins to degrade due to workload. Reduced number of shares leads to greater cost per share. So for people who do not need the transactional databse, why not provide the lower cost option? Why force them to pay the higher cost for something that they would not use if they had it.
That does not sound idiotic to me. As it happens, since I don't need foreign keys or transactions, I am taking advantage of using a host that offers options, and I'm using one of their servers that does not have the InnoDB engine at a lower cost per month. And I don't feel like an idiot.
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:48 am
by josh
Pizza Hut would go out of business too if they put all the toppings on everyone's pizza. Didn't take them long to figure out to charge 0.50 per topping.
Im not saying users are idiots, I'm saying the hosting companies are idiots for leaving $$ on the table

Especially when they have so many competitors who are willing to take it off the table.
What I am saying, is that I disagree that maximizing profit per unit is a good business strategy. 1,000% return on .05 still isn't very much money. I'd rather have 1% return on a million.
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:09 pm
by Bill H
Im not saying users are idiots, I'm saying the hosting companies are idiots for leaving $$ on the table
Well, maybe so. But if the hosting company did not offer the lower price for the non-InnoDB server that I'm using, I would spurn him and go to a different vendor that had a lower price. Maybe he could fill his server up to capacity with people willing to pay the higher price, but since his servers are not filled to capacity at the moment, not the ones with the lower price, and not the InnoDB-capable ones at the higher price, that seems doubtful.
So I think he'd rather have the money that I'm paying him than have higher priced space that remained empty and produced no revenue. You still have not convinced me that he's an idiot. And he gives really proficient and quick service when I have a problem, so he certainly doesn't act like an idiot.
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:20 pm
by Bill H
What I am saying, is that I disagree that maximizing profit per unit is a good business strategy. 1,000% return on .05 still isn't very much money. I'd rather have 1% return on a million.
You're assuming that the difference would be that great. The way you put it, so would I.
But would you rather have $5 per user on 1000 users, than have $4 per user on 2000 users?
I don't know what the difference in number of users and cost/price per user is, but then I'm not in that business. Hosting companies are in that business, and I assume they do study those numbers and make decisions based on, hello, maximizing profit per unit. How can miximizing profit per unit ever be poor business strategy? When would it ever be good strategy to say, "
Oh, we're making too much profit on that unit, we need to reduce the selling price in order to reduce the amount of profit we're making on it." The purpose of any business is to return a profit, and I cannot understand how maximizing that profit could be a poor strategy.
Re: MySQL 5
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:23 pm
by josh
Bill H wrote:How can miximizing profit per unit ever be poor business strategy?
There is a profit "curve". Raising profit per unit tends to usually decrease units sold. If your only hueristic is to maximize profit its a poor business strategy. Somewhere you also have to cater to the customer's actual need.
I guess it doesn't necessarily mean they are idiots, but I would feel that way if I were one of their customers and decided I wanted to try innoDB. In that scenario how do you calculate the profit/cost of causing your own customer churn rate to increase? lol