MySQL user's Conference

[Jake]

Bradley Baetz wrote:

>I'm planning to use Apache::DBI instead, mainly because it'll detect
>dead connections on startup for you, and do ->rollback, plus you can set
>up the connections when the server is forked. Its aso theoretically
>possible to share connections if using a threaded mod_perl on apache2,
>but thats not supported ATM by the DBI stuff, and we don't support
>mod_perl, so its not really important ATM. There is talk of margine
>Apache::DBI support into the main DBI code, and abstracting the 'pool'
>interface.
>  
>
The name of that module seems to imply a reliance on Apache which we've 
been avoiding to date. Is that a misleading name or would having |use 
Apache::DBI| in the code cause those who don't use Apache some heartache?

>Our current connect stuff is abstracted enough that its really really
>easy to change, anyway.
>

>>   * Compress data if possible.  gzip is quick, cheap, and makes things
>>     faster, but you can't use it if you want to search the data.
>>    
>>
>
>That doesn't apply to us, except for attachments, and I don't think that
>that woudl help anything we do.
>  
>
IIRC bmo has had some problems with disk space in the past, has that 
been solved now? With the amount of HTML and patch attachments I would 
think that compression would reduce the size of that table signifigantly.