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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
