From: Randy Lawrence <jm@...>
Date: 2004-05-25T00:40:07+09:00
Subject: Re: mysql-ruby or ruby-mysql?

Paul Vudmaska wrote:

> Andreas Schwarz wrote:
> 
>> Randy Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> We're currently using:
>>>
>>> Apache 2.0.46
>>> mod_ruby 1.20
>>> Ruby 1.8.x (stable snapshot)
>>> Mysql 4.0.20
>>>
>>> Do you recommend mysql-ruby or ruby-mysql?  And what version would be 
>>> most reliable given our setup?
>>
>>
>>
>> Take mysql-ruby. It uses the "official" mysql client library, so there 
>> is less room for errors and it is probably A LOT faster than the pure 
>> ruby implementation (ruby-mysql). I never had any problems with it.
>>
>>> Based on the history log of mysql-ruby, we're not sure if it is 
>>> compatible with Mysql 4.0 because it mentions 4.1.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is.
>>
> I'm using the same versions as you - and RedHat 9.2. I had problems with 
> mysql-ruby - as did an experienced linux admin.
>  >>Based on the history log of mysql-ruby, we're not sure if it is 
> compatible with Mysql 4.0 because it mentions 4.1.
> I'd say - probably.
> 
> If you are using RedHat and have success please post again.
> 
> 
> 
> 

I just got this working.  Haven't had time to test extensively but 
simple mysql queries are working fine, no problems detected yet.

Redhat Advanced Server 3.0 (kernel 2.4.20)
Apache 2.0.46
Ruby 1.8.1 (stable snapshot 2004-05-10 [i686-linux])
Mysql 4.0.20 (compiled from source)
mysql-ruby 2.4.5
mod_ruby 1.20
eruby 1.05

Ran both .rbx (mod_ruby) and .rhtml (eruby) to display contents of a 
single mysql table (innodb).

Performance was a LOT faster than I expected (my expectations were low).

If you can provide some more info about specific problems you've had, 
I'll see if I can reproduce them here (if time allows).