MySQL's applicability (was: Java and Python)

[Cameron Laird]

In article <3C9887B9.6090603 at thinkware.se>,
Magnus =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lyck=E5?=  <magnus at thinkware.se> wrote:
>Hi, as a Java coder you might want to look
>into Jython and combine your skills. That
>would for instance enable you to quickly
>prototype Java programs in Python.
Worth repeating.
>
>
>Ahmed Moustafa wrote:
>
>> May I ask you what the scal for your webapp was? (Because MySQL is 
>> related to small to mid-size web applications). Is it the same case with 
>> Python?
>
>
>
>Not at all.
>
>
>But I think both MySQL and Python scales well.
>MySQL has some shortcomings, and since the
>purchase cost is so low :) it's a good
>choise for systems with a small budget. But
>don't dismiss is as a weak database in larger
>settings. In places where you have many more
>reads than transactions, MySQL might well be
>the fastest choise.
Undeniably.  That's certainly the conclusion of "the first time
a computer publication has published database benchmark results
...", as *eWeek* did in its 25 February 2002 issue.  The subtitle
of the article was "Oracle9i and MySQL top the field ..."

So, no, MySQL is NOT "related to small to mid-size web applica-
tions".

I rarely use MySQL myself, because it doesn't happen to meet my
most common needs.  There are indeed several aspects in which
"scalability" can be interpreted in a way which disqualifies
MySQL.  I can imagine these might be particularly prominent for
someone coming from an OS/390 background.  The precision of
answers seen here, though, correlates the specificity of questions
quite closely.  When we're asked whether Python scales as poorly
as MySQL, with little more context, responses are ... unlikely to
hit the questioner's exact-although-unexpressed target.
			.
			.
			.
>There are many big web apps written in Python.
Worth repeating.
			.
			.
			.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html