From: Bill Newton (bnewtonnetworkmerchants.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2008 - 09:54:31 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

No, its mainly because BDB wasn't very good. Its transactional, but not
MVCC. Take a look at a contemporary article when the acquisition was made :
http://www.computerworld.com/databasetopics/data/software/story/0,10801,108705,00.html

Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> Its mainly because it was purchased by Oracle. BDB provided
> transaction support. Innodb has been the defacto choice for a ACID
> transactions, but Innodb was also purchased by Oracle in its attempt
> to kill MySQL after its failed attempt to purchase MySQL. That's why
> MySQL has been working on their own storage engine as well as the
> pluggable storage system.
>
> Curtis
>
> David Giragosian wrote:
>> On 7/21/08, Moon's Father <yueliangdao0608gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Any reply is appreciated .
>>> --
>>> I'm a MySQL DBA in china.
>>> More about me just visit here:
>>> http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe something to do with this: *BDB support will be removed. * Note
>> that,
>> as of MySQL 5.1, BDB isn't supported any longer.
>>
>> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/bdb-storage-engine.html
>> But you're right that as a storgage engine, there have been very few
>> questions related to it, on this mailing list anyway.
>>
>>
>
>

--
Bill Newton
Network Merchants Inc.
http://www.nmi.com
(847) 352-4850/ Tel
(888) 829-3631/ Fax

--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]