Is there such a thing? I seem to remember someone mentioning a program that let you do the same things as phpmyadmin, but from an application running on your local system.

I have tried googling, but I cant see anything current or anything that works.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Apart from the fact that mysql is a piece of s***, and isn't even ANSI compliant. Yes tehre is .. MySQL Control Center.

There is a client on the MS SQL server disc for all platforms, you will have to add ODBC data Source using TCP/IP. Read the doco it's all there.

Just for interest's sake, obes, what would you prefer over mysql?

Postgre? MS?

Certainly you dont dislike SQL altogether...

mongie you've obviously looked in a wrong place. Did you checked thier main site? Cause if you did you'll see these 2 things straight away:

MySQL® Control Center
http://www.mysql.com/products/mysqlcc/index.html

And

MySQLGUI
http://www.mysql.com/products/mysqlgui/index.html

;)

OOPS I thought you where after MS SQL, oh well what Opec said or just use

mySQLstudio
http://www.mysqlstudio.com/shareware.php3

phpMyAdmin
http://www.phpmyadmin.net/home_page/

Just for interest's sake, obes, what would you prefer over mysql?

Postgre? MS?

I don't want to start another ever so boring MySQL v.s. PostgreSQL, but, what Obes said is true in the sense that if you wanted an ACID compliance RDBM you do not want to use MySQL. Currently it doesn't support *natively* (in the stable release version) Stored Procedures, Foreign Keys, Transaction, Views or even (full) sub-selects (only can do some in SELECT but not in UPDATE and DELETE AFAIK -- correct me if I'm wrong), collerated sub-queries. You do however can add some these features like transaction, foreign key supports via 3rd party add-on during compile time.

Personally, having worked with full-featured RDBM such as Oracle, PostgreSQL and (I know I'll go to hell for this) MS SQL 2000, MySQL really do sucks. It fine if you a really really really fast "read" only Database (which is why Slashdot uses them) but if speed isn't your main concern but data integrety is then I'd stay away from it.

Most "normal" websites don't really care about referential integrity and completing the transactions/rollback on errors, etc. they just want to be able to serve pages as quickly as possible and this is where MySQL is (if you belive the benchmark results) best at.

They are working on closing these gaps so may be in a few years it too can be called ACID compliance RDBM -- until then it is not.

Benchmark, Schment Mark is what I always say, just because it's fast doesn't mean it will suit all real-world applications. It certainly lacks the features that other RDMBs have.

PostgreSQL is one of the better GPL RDMB out there, there are others such as Interbase but I haven't used them. I think the reason why people rave on about MySQL is that it's easy to install and use and administer. Where as PostgreSQL is "slightly" tricker to setup.

This is of course entirely based on my own experience, your mileage will most likely varied :).

data integrity is for pussies

FABIAN PASCAL'S

At Database Debunkings I recently posted an exchange on whether or not MySQL is a DBMS, let alone relational, and invited readers to test themselves on their ability to see through the prevailing fallacies and misconceptions, including those by designers of DBMS products. I am debunking the exchange in this month's column. In what follows, HT is Heikki Tuuri, author of InnoBase, a product he refers to as InnoDB and describes as a "back-end which provides transactions to MySQL" (a concept which, by itself, reveals a misconception, can you figure it out?). LF is Lee Fesperman.

Part I
Part II

There should be more database threads on QGL.

Mysql is cheap and nasty, but its speed is respectable.
We use it at work because its not too expensive (for our client) and its win32.
But yeah, its SQL is somewhat retarded. I have to use temporary tables to get around subqueries, but you can end up with a bunch of sql statements to do something the would require subqueries.

Opec pretty much summed it up.

Once you become used to a certain set of standard tools having to use an inferior subset is annoying.

Half the stuff MySQL is missing has been in products for years and years. Even dodgy SQL apps like MicroSQL were more complete the MySQL, its good I guess if you haven't used anything else or its the only thing you have used.

Its like they built a race car lets make this uber fast with no extra features at all, then trying to use it as a family car.

Whooooo Obes MySQL can be useful in lots of things, I developed a issue tracking system for my last place of employment, it logs around 200-300 calls a day for 1600+ users and hasn't missed a beat for 18months now. Horses for courses, my only objection is to MySQL, well being called SQL for a start, and the nongs that call it and most of the other DB's out there relational, epecially when they don't even come close. Well Oracle and JBase do, but their traetment of nulls is still a point of issue.

in other words, obes is a gumby

hasn't missed a beat for 18months now

How do you know?

Cause I'm starting a new contract there on monday and I speak to the Senior Unix Admin every week, and 3 of mates are coding there and I communicate with them on a daily basis, and converse with 2 of the directors regularly.

I don't mean is it still up and running, i mean how would you know if it missed a beat, and lost data?

i mean how would you know if it missed a beat, and lost data

And the question is, how would I know what;

a) if it had missed a beat - they would have contacted me for support, or help or given me s*** for writting a piece of crap software

b) if it had lost data - auto row the id therefore the last row id in the main table should be the total number of records logged ever, select table and the number of records returned should match.

I don't get you gumby. In a single post you atempt to disagree with me and then agree with me ...

At no point did i say MySQL serves no purpose.

Try playing the ball not the man Gumby.

I'm confused Obes. You posted

Once you become used to a certain set of standard tools having to use an inferior subset is annoying.

Half the stuff MySQL is missing has been in products for years and years. Even dodgy SQL apps like MicroSQL were more complete the MySQL, its good I guess if you haven't used anything else or its the only thing you have used.

Its like they built a race car lets make this uber fast with no extra features at all, then trying to use it as a family car.

Too which I replied that even though MySQL is lacking it is useful. My original post about the article by Pascal was to point out that most DB's fall very short of being Relational, bar Oracle and JBase. I'm sorry if you saw it as a person attack when I posted

Whooooo Obes MySQL can be useful in lots of things

it wasn't meant as a personal attack, as I agree with you on all your points, however horses for courses.