MySQL A Threat to Bigwigs? 505
Disoculated writes "Is MySQL a threat to bigwigs? is the question asked in CNN's technology section. The article notes that MySQL is running perhaps 20% of the web databases but its revenue is merely 0.02%... yet the company is still making money and putting out an excellent product. Is this a sign that the database market is in for a drastic change? Of course, there's no mention of PostgreSQL or mSQL, but I guess that's typical."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Interesting)
That isn't to say that I am against using databases, but the overhead of MySQL is often pretty absurd for very simple dynamic websites (hell, a lot of kinds of dynamic web sites) and desktop apps managing a relatively small amount of information. If a DB was integrated into the OS as the preferred method of storing data, with the overhead paid for across many apps in increased convenience, it'd be worth it. But why the hell should I need to install MySQL just to maintain a list of todos and contacts? Look on Freshmeat- there is a torrent of applications using MySQL for managing small amoutns of data, both web and desktop apps.
It's too bad most Linux developers aren't interested in doing something really forward-thinking. If there was a DB integrated into the OS, and apps encouraged to use it, with avenues of data management made easily available to the user, computing could be actually pushed ahead by Linux. But not today, and probably nor ever.
Oh yes, my point: most of these apps would do fine with a flat file or (if one must get fancy) an XML file to manage this data.
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that what Microsoft calls the Registry?
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Informative)
Only if you're doing everything manually. The times where I've gone with serialized data or an XML file, the code ended up less than the same solution done with an SQL connection. However, if you're doing this with a language or library that makes you reinvent this wheel every time, yes, you're worse off in terms of time spent coding. But even if you're stuck on a platform like such, there is no reason you cannot make a relatively small wrapper around
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Insightful)
Much of the time, someone starts working with flat files and ends up wasting a lot of time writing, testing and debugging code that simply does the file handling work. Sure, a database may be considered "overkill" for some tasks, but most of the time it's worth it just for the time you save not worrying about that extra layer.
Plus, it is a heck of a lot easier later on
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Funny)
An application integrated into the OS? You mean like Internet Explorer?
MySQL is appropriate, even for small stuff (Score:5, Informative)
Another way to put it - as the application grows in complexity, more functionality will be added to the data store as the programmers painfully rediscover all the challenges which real databases have already conquered. Of course MySQL doesn't cover all of those, like ACID, but it covers most. Look at the amount of effort that went into MySQL, Postgres and Oracle - it's huge.
Of course, you may be thinking of simpler applications than I am. If the data can legitimately be represented by one table, with no denormalization, then I agree a database may be overkill.
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Informative)
XML and flat files are good for data that does't change very often, and are only ever edited by a single user. (XML is also a good way to feed data fram a database into an application) Beyond that, they are pretty useless. They require far too much time on the developer's part when data within given contraints are needed, and coordinating updates between multiple processes can easily turn into a nightmare. Not to mention scalability. XML can get pretty large, and due to the non-indexed nature of the data, it can take a long time to read through it all looking for what you need. For many applications, using a database just makes sense.
The whole point of an app using a database is to offload the storage specifics onto another program. I applaude the developers of these "MySQL (ab)using programs" for making the decision to focus on their products features and stability, rather than on how they will store their records. Besides, once you install MySQL (or Postgres) once, then it is there for all of your DB dependant apps to use.
Not to mention the fact that MySQL 4 has standalone features that make your argument pretty moot. Any application can link in the MySQL core at build time, and will be able to have it's own MySQL databases separate from any active system wide MySQL instance. This gives developers an SQL storage system, without requiring the user to install a database on their own. It just comes bundled with the app, and when the app loads, the MySQL core is loaded right along with it.
I'll keep using databases for storage, and flat files for configuration data, thanks though!
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Interesting)
The point would be for a unified model of data format, access and storage. No more file format worries. Empowering users to manage and manipulate their data. Easy sharing between apps on the same machine, over the network, across platforms.
The important change isn't in capability but in the way of doing things. Since I do not mean stuck in the kernel when I say OS integration, I simply mean that it would be a core part of the OS used by all applications. Instead of files as we know them. This could be provided by an existing user-space solution, but until there is some standardization the benefits wouldn't really materialize. E.g., it doesn't matter if MySQL is installed on this Linux box on my desk if none of the applications use it.
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Informative)
The Newton OS did it, with an object database. Down the line, other PDA OSes did it as well- Palm OS and the Helio's VT-OS both provided a database as the only means of data persistence. The Palm OS and VT-OS DB systems are quite a bit more restricted than the Newton OS's OODB or the theoretical system-wide relational DB we're discussion.
Dynapad (my PDA OS/OE) take an approach similar to the Newton OS with an system-wide object database.
Re:Linux Registry? (Score:3, Informative)
Nonetheless, the kind of system-wide database is not the same thing as the MS registry, although the MS registry is a good idea, although (very?) poorly implemented. I'd
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Informative)
I used to be a big fan of MySQL, mostly because it was moderately capable and free. Now that I have tried Postgres though there is no way I would go back.
Yes, version 4 will be an improvement, BUT it is still missing many key features like views, triggers, full outer joins, update with subselect, that are already present in Postgres, and the fact is I've been using the features that MySQL is promising for the future for a year and a half now.
The following site does a very good comparison between the feature sets of MySQL, Oracle and Postgres.
http://det-dbalice.if.pw.edu.pl/det-dbalice/doc
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention column and table constraints, stored procedures, extensible datatypes, user-defined operators, query rewrite rules, and schema and domain support.
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Funny)
I'm bookmarking this story so next time my database melts I can come here for a quick laugh before going off to repair it.
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing that probably keeps a lot of users (esp. web people) loyal to MySQL, is the fact that they learned SQL on MySQL and don't really know what else it should be doing for them.
In fact, that is where I am right now: just realizing the limits of what MySQL can do and tired of writing various hacks via PHP or Perl to get around certain weaknesses.
But I think that a lack of SQL culture could keep many users locked into MySQL when other DBs might be better for them.
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Informative)
What about the following data integrity and relational features (shared by both Oracle and PostgreSQL)?
- Multi-Version Concurrency
- stored procedures
- triggers (and PostgreSQL has declarative query RULEs, also)
- column and table constraints
- user/schema support
- domains
- extensible data types (so-called "complex" datatypes)
- user-defined operators
(sigh) Yes, I understand that not everyone needs these features (actually, they need them more than they realize, but they lack awareness), but to the people that use these features all the time, MySQL will not be a replacement anytime soon. In fact, the lowly old Microsoft Access has more relational data integrity features than MySQL.
It's not that it is bad at what it does, its just that most people don't realize what it does. As someone else in this Slashdot thread mentioned, the best place for MySQL is as a replacement for the older non-relational systems such as BerkeleyDB, DBASE, etc... I also se it as a convenient place to store static data output from larger systems (company stores its main data in Oracle, but outputs snapshots to MySQL for high-volume web serving, etc...).
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is that Oracle (and other enterprise DBs like MSSQL, DB2) have enterprise features that MySQL (and other open source DB's) just don't have, and probably won't have for Years. It's more than just the ability to scale, and raw performance on simplistic tables.
Most everyone is very much aware of MySQL and other open source solutions are great for certain types of applications, but horrible for others.
That said, many enterprise users use Oracle in cases where MySQL would be much more cost effective, and probably better performing as well.
Re:Have a look at SAP DB before talking about thos (Score:5, Insightful)
But for some reason people ignore it. Is it because it is created by a company and not a group ? Or is it that everybody has already chosen their favorite free DB and won't look at others ?
Sure beats me.
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Interesting)
What gives? Personally I only use 3.x.x but that is because the scripts I use were developed for it and don't take advantage of 4 AND I'm not as comfortable with 4, what it brings to the table and what it may or may not break in my setup.
Re:Version 4 Will Tell (Score:3, Interesting)
Features / cost not the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the applications support. If you are buying a $5M ERP, CRM or whatever, it's going to support Oracle, and possibly DB2 or MS/SQL. In order to "port" to another DB, it's going to take a Huge effort with vendor support.
When third party commercial developers start supporting open source DB's, THEN you will see
Cool and amusing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair price? (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing is, why, exactly, should the price of database software be so high anyway? If the company behind it is able to make a profit then I'd say that the price they set is a fair one. That's a concept that gets lost a lot in a pure capitalist approach: just because you can charge more money for something doesn't mean that you must, or even that you should. People on
Re:Fair price? (Score:5, Insightful)
If MySQL evolves into a legitimate competitor to Oracle, *in the same market*, then it will instantly become necessary to reinvent MySQL. Perhaps we can then call it "Classic" MySQL.
I use MySQL specificly because it is *not* Oracle, or even anything like it.
And that's without even getting into the fact that using grep and perl on text files would be the appropriate technology for many of the uses MySQL and other small footprint databases are currently used.
Hammers come in a variety of shapes and sizes because so do nail like fasteners. Nail like fasteners come in a variety of shapes and sizes because it would be idiocy to hang a picture with a railroad spike.
There's a saying, "The right tool for the right job."
Perhaps you've heard it before?
As for your second point, virtually all software is ridiculously overpriced on a *fair* market value basis. They are able to get away with it in corporate software packages because a) The software generally replaces even more expensive services, and b) Because corporate buying policies are retarded due to the fact that most of the buyers aren't taking the money out of their own pockets, so, as my granny used to say, "What the fuck."
KFG
typical (Score:2, Interesting)
Or do you hear of anyone mentioning NetBSD (etc.
- Hubert
I think PostgreSQL is more of a threat (Score:5, Interesting)
On the postgreSQL general mailing list, people rarely talk about mySQL anymore (let along mSQL). It's (mySQL) is generally regarded as a good alternative to the Berkeley DB stuff (i.e. non-relational), whereas postgreSQL these days gets lots of traffic from Oracle people wanting to go somewhere cheaper.
Oracle mustn't be happy, I'd think.
Oracle is preferable to me & my company. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes paying a little can save lots more in the long run. I personally hate Transact SQL but it's probably because I started on PL/SQL first.
However, that being said I just don't understand some of the stupid ass implementations in TSQL.
MySQL is great because it's small, cheap(free), and very reliable (in my us
Re:I think PostgreSQL is more of a threat (Score:5, Interesting)
I've developed my last application for MySQL. Everytime the server looses power, I have to ssh into client's servers and tell them how much data they've lost (repair table). It's not a happy time, and buy a UPS is not reassuring (most have them, accidentally bumping power switches/knocking cables loose still happens).
InnoDB doesn't have this problem, but then again, it has buggy key problems on all of my servers. Sometimes it can't find a record that is there (often this is worse than just loosing the record... you can't create a duplicate). I have to periodically rebuild the index on inno, so I scrapped it too.
I've used postgreSQL before, and it seems MUCH more robust. It can be a little slower on certain queries, but I'll sleep better after my clients are ported over. I also get updatable views, custom objects, sub-selects, embedded procedures (in a variety of languages), transactions, cross table deletes/updates, and speed when I take advantage of key clustering and these other features rather than hacked solutions for sub-select. I've seen people select "delete from table a where bid=\""+b.id+"\"" from b where c=3 into outfile d; then run mysql -u user -p d
Sure vacuum could be automatic when there is a great degree of fragmentation, but those are scratches compared to the gaping holes in MySQL like ACID compliance. I've looked at version 4, and it changes the queries so much that I would have to port my app to version 4. It's best I go another route than be disappointed again.
It sure does help Oracle migrants that pgplsql is about the same as Oracle's plsql
Re:I think PostgreSQL is more of a threat (Score:3, Informative)
Can you describe the index problem in more detail? Please send a bug report to mysql@lists.mysql.com.
- What MySQL version did you use?
- Did CHECK TABLE report the table ok?
- What kind of SELECT queries did you execute and what did they report?
- Are you aware that in the AUTOCOMMIT=0 mode you have to COMMIT your read transaction to advance the consistent read timepoint? Some users do not know this and then wonder why committed data is not visible in another connection. InnoDB serializes read-only tra
Re:I think PostgreSQL is more of a threat (Score:3, Insightful)
this is not the fault of the DB this is the fault of the data-owners.
Obviousally your clients have very little value to their data as they do not have the proper equipment to protect it. Power switches getting bumped? what are they ru
Re:I think PostgreSQL is more of a threat (Score:5, Insightful)
So no matter what happens, your database will eventually fail and lose power. Even if the power is 100%, the db software and/or OS will crash.
And yes, oracle crashes
Re:I think PostgreSQL is more of a threat (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about MySQL 4, but the biggest problem is that MySQL seemed to emphasise speed over robustness.. Large scale benchmarking in the 3-tree caused corrupted databases. postgres has had a journal for a little bit now (don't know how long though). Plus postgres's version-based rows allows for some really high performance parallel transaction control.
It all comes down to what you are really trying to do.. If you're willing to lose a day's worth of work, and you're not going to have more than a couple dozen simultaneous connections, then MySQL is probably good for you.
Perhaps 4 has allowed MySQL to catch up with Postgres / surpase it, but it's had too murky a history for a lot of businesses who rank data-integrity number 1.
Re:I think PostgreSQL is more of a threat (Score:5, Insightful)
I can. I have, many times.
These lead me to suspect that your implementation was broken. I've never seen them happen.
Hey, what? You can't store dollar signs and garbage in an integer or float, you shouldn't be trying to feed that to your db in the first place! If you want to do that kind of thing, amidst a `live' table is not the place for it: use a temp table and do it properly. Whis is probably why the PostgreSQL people didn't implement it.
I hope you've got a lifespan like Methuselah's, then. PostgreSQL does stored procedures in a variety of languages already. Your post does sound like a BASIC programmer grunting and squealing when presented with a real language that insists on him doing stuff like decalring variables, and has scoping etc, forcing him to do `work' (actually investing in manageability) that he didn't have to do before - at least, not up front and in small doses.
I wonder who mysql steals marketshare from? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder about Sybase and Paradox which seem to be mid to high end of the market which Microsoft really hurt and now so its mysql.
I tried out mysql and its ok but postgreSQL is alot better for a RDBM. Its no wonder that RedHat picked postgreSQL for its database product. In Asia the situation is opposite of the west and all the technical books are for postgreSQL.
I just find it hard to believe its eating Oracle's or IBM's core markets. Mysql is a simple bicycle vs a high end car in comparison.
Re:I wonder who mysql steals marketshare from? (Score:5, Informative)
Look here [webtechniques.com] and here [sitepoint.com]. Both of these websites mention what postgreSQL (and Oracle)offers that mysql is lacking as well as how to migrate to PostgreSQL. Keep in mind I am not a database administrator or do I consider myself a sql guru. I only use them to write web enabled apps as a hobby and not in a corporate environment.
However it was rumoured that postgreSQL lacked real backup tools to fix a corrupt database. I believe this might of been fixed but was an issue 3 years ago. This is the only downside I see. Both Mysql and Oracle have tools to fix such a problem. Maybe someone who is reading this who is more familiar with administering databases can comment on this.
Re:I wonder who mysql steals marketshare from? (Score:5, Informative)
The first article was written in September 2001. The second article was written in October 2001. The person who replied to your post cited an article from 2000, almost three years ago. The PostgreSQL vs. MySQL argument would be a whole lot more interesting if the articles cited were actually relevant to newer versions of both databases. It would also be great if they were more than just, "Hey, look, I got my inefficient bulletin board working a little better under database XYZ."
The best database is the one that has the features you need, the performance you desire, at a price you're willing to pay.
That depends... (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, there are some applications that just don't make any sense to switch. An example is government databases. I'm working right now with a state government database written on top of Sybase, and i don't think it's ever going to move off of Sybase unless the company tanks. There's actually three pages of (somewhat unfounded) explanations as to why it can't be ported to MS SQL. Mostly bullshit about WACOM SQL being incompatible with Transact (which begs the question, why not just use Transact in the first place when MS' and Sybase' version are about 80% similar). Can you imagine the developers, who have big enough egos to include three pages of MS SQL Server bashing in their docs, redoing their whole bloated app just so it can run on a free environment? Lord no! Not to mention the cost to taxpayers, who have already footed massive bonds to pay the usually high up front costs for software. Think they're going to pay a hundred k for some developers to rewrite everything in a free environment when they could just pay a few thousand for a Sybase license?
Do I think that truly open minded (some would say wise) development houses looking to cut costs on new systems are going to go MySQL? Absolutely. But there'll always be a place for the behemoth server app, not because it's better, but because it's PERCEIVED as better.
Threat? (Score:3, Interesting)
In a job I had to migrate an application done originally in clipper to web/sql/etc, and choosed mysql because I thinked that it will be enough, but if not, the migration to a new sql server will be a lot faster and less complex than the first one.
"Ethically Obliged"? (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL does not merely give you an ethical obligation to share your modifications with anyone you distribute them to. It gives you a legal obligation. Until shown otherwise by a court, the GPL is legally binding. As such, stating that the (presumably only) obligation that someone modifying the code has in an ethical one furthers the outdated notion that all pieces of Open Source Software are amateur projects that are only held together by people who choose to donate their time for whatever higher reason. Not that there is anything wrong with volunteering your skills, but there are major businesses investing time and money in OSS.
From a business standpoint, OSS is legitimate. It would be nice if CNN reported it that way.
Note: I contacted CNN.com regarding this when they first posted the article. Predictably, I have not yet received a response.
Re:"Ethically Obliged"? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is how I read that statement, and from that standpoint, the author is correct.
Reason why PostgreSQL or mSQL weren't mentioned (Score:5, Insightful)
From the posting:
Of course, there's no mention of PostgreSQL or mSQL, but I guess that's typical.
This article has all the signs of being the effort of MySQL's PR firm. Nothing wrong with that; they didn't mention PostgreSQL or other OSS databases because their desired outcome is to increase awareness of MySQL, not the others.
Cheers!
ERe:Reason why PostgreSQL or mSQL weren't mentioned (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the way that things tend to work in the magazine world. In this case, since MySQL is not that big a fish, Fortune's editor tells some junior writer, "Forbes and BusinessWeek have run articles on open source software in business. Do something on open source databases." The junior writer then looks at the figures, sees that MySQL is the most popular of the OSS db's, sees that there's an actual company behind them, and calls up MySQL AB's press office. Said PR firm basically sends him an outline, w
Cheap, fast and easy. (Score:3, Informative)
Having to use a data-storage solution like Oracle is simply unfeasible for anyone but large companies. I've been using MySQL for 3 years to build web applications, and I've never had a crash or corrupted data. The only problems I ever ran into was when one of my systems had a table get to 2GB on the 2.2 kernel, but that wasn't MySQL's fault
With the inclusion of InnoDB, MySQL definitely becomes a threat. The main problems I've run into with MySQL is backing up/restoring without locking up the whole system (table-level locking). InnoDB of course removes this!
I see no reason to use Oracle over MySQL for anything but the largest system. Then again, why even that? Doesn't Slashdot run on InnoDB...?
web databases != database market (Score:5, Insightful)
our company actually puts mysql onto websites, but no client comes (at least for us) and says 'can you replace my blah-blah db version blah point blah with mysql'. we usually put mysql as a replacement for product databases, forums, etc. which previously were stored in text files or worse. and we usually do this for clients who simply can't afford anything and haven't invested into updating their site in 1-2 years. if they can afford it, they usually already know what they want, and it usually doesn't come free in a cvs snapshot.
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? (Score:3, Funny)
But that is an excellent idea for PostgreSQL.
Mindshare (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mindshare (Score:4, Insightful)
Much as I wouldn't hire someone who's sole unix experience was with Linux (for any position other than Junior anyway). You simply learn a slew more tricks of the trade when your experience is diversified. When making a decision, you can usually back it up with a decent reason rather than simply "It's what I'm used to".
Nothing against Linux or MySQL. I've said the same to people who have solely used Oracle on Solaris.
transactions (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of message boards on the web use MySQL as their database, because even though people are uploading comments, the amount of data that they upload isn't all that much. Slashdot for example, a popular discussion could prompt 500 messages to be posted in 15 minutes, but still, that's not that much information.
The key word here is transactions, the constant reading/writing, downloading/uploading of information on a massive scale, where each occurence is audited. And I think that's where MySQL has its weakness. PostgreSQL is supposed to be a bit slower, but it takes transactions into account. Red Hat's database software runs on the PostgreSQL engine specifically because of this.
Banking and finance applications require this accountability, because it's just that important. Websites don't need that accountability and overhead, which is why MySQL shines for web servers.
MySQL is ACID (Score:5, Interesting)
In my (informal) tests MySQL/InnoDB is less than half the speed of MySQL/MyISAM but still about 50% faster than PostgreSQL for simple and small tasks. That said, PostgreSQL has more features than MySQL and I still prefer it for most tasks.
Missinfg Features (Score:5, Insightful)
All those who can live with less, well, IMHO having these features still makes development of sound applications so much easier it pays off having it. PostgreSQL has most of Oracles features, conforms fully to ACID, costs the same or less as MySQL (nothing, compared to MySQL which is virtually useless free without the commercial table handlers), and there are some companies supporting it too.
In my experience an application which does correct error checking and handles faults etc. is not faster in MySQL than in most other DBs, just harder to write. And there are alternatives to PostgreSQL, if you don't like it.
Jürgen Strobel
It depends on what you want to do (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't believe MySQL doesn't even have subselects yet. I've been living on subselects and 'connect by' for years. I never did like PL/SQL all that much, but it does allow you to run complex programs over the network without creating high traffic. And SQLNet does make things a lot easier. The whole thing is kind of like a database flavor of Unix, with its own world of commands, scripting tools and permissions.
As for Oracle's 'fancy' products, like Express, Forms, the OID, Portal, and Workflow, they are serious attempts to extend the database principles into a generalized suite of enterprise-level business tools. They are a little too cutting-edge for my taste, but you won't find anything like this in a non-proprietary product.
Re:MySQL DOES have sub-selects (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a pathetic excuse for a MAJOR lack of functionality. If a query can be rewritten to avoid the sub-select, why didn't the MySQL optimizer just do so?
Until a database can support transactions, subselects (yes on UPDATE/INSERTs too) and views (one of the most fundamental relational features) it has no business pitching itself as a real relational DBMS. MySQL is a glorified file system, and works well for people who need a SQ
Why not mySQL? (Score:5, Interesting)
mySQL is, unfortunately, a SQL interface to a bunch of files based on various index sequential access methods. It gets its speed by ignoring transactions, triggers, stored procedures and other things that, when your company is successful, will need in its database. mySQL's replication is also not guaranteed and when its spotty, it doesn't tell you.
The open source DB community is a powerful force with a lot of potential and a lot of success. That success is in markets where transactions are low and/or not critical to the customer.
mySQL and others need to ensure that they have these features:
Where do you want to spend your R&D money? On your product or on the database that does most of the things you need, but not all of the things you need. Don't you want to spend your time building the product that pays your salary and makes your customers happy? Why spend time on the database, just buy something that works.
One more thing, a not unreasonable architecture for a database driven application is:
Re:Why not mySQL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the ACID qualifications have been satisfied by MySQL through the InnoDB handler for over two years. Other issues, such as advanced SQL features, are still in progress.
But to the original point, I think it's a good thing that MySQL doesn't think that ACID is important. They have different priorities. Their priorities do not lie in makin
No. It isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
PostgreSQL is a threat to the bigwigs, however.
This is not to say it won't change. MySQL apparently is trying to implement features that would make it compete with real relational databases, but last I heard, views weren't on the list, so I'm not holding my breath.
Other OSS projects that may be a big threat include SAP DB (used to be Adabas D) [sapdb.org] and... uh... right. There you go. Reply if you're a real DBA and think there's another competitor in the space of true relational RDBMSs. Hint: If you think MySQL could be on the list, you're not thinking of industrial strength databases.
Surprised.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I have seen SQL server most on small/medium size business environments. Any large 'enterprise' sized business deserves what they get if they are dumb enough to rely MS SQL server. Look what happened to Bank Of Americas ATMS when the last MS virus du jour made its rounds.
I think MySQL is the best bet to reduce Microsofts share of the DB market. Oracle is better, but small business isn't willing to fork out that kind of cash, especially in this economy. MySQL is especially perfect for the small business web site, and with Microsoft irrationally increasing subscribtion fees and forcing upgrades, a good percentage of their customers will be running into the open arms of MySQL/Postgres.
You're overlooking many other database engines (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, MySQL isn't really all it's cracked up to be. Features such as page-level locking, (used by MySQL) and locking escalation (used by M$ SQL) will degrade performance in a multi-user application. So, while MySQL is great for a web-server, developing/deploying an application that uses MySQL can cause undesired performance degradation when multiple users are simultaneously accessing the data.
SQLite (Score:3, Interesting)
SQLite [sqlite.org] claims to be twice as fast as both MySQL and PostgreSQL, and is more SQL92-compliant and ACID-compliant than MySQL.
Does that mean everyone should drop MySQL and PostgreSQL for SQLite? No. It means you have to evaluate your situation and choose the best tool for the job.
Personally, I've have very good luck using PostgreSQL [postgresql.org], and probably won't ever consider using MySQL until it is truly ACID-compliant.
My Story (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
For applications with these types of functions, which do not include complex queries, large transaction volumes, rigorous reliability including transaction log backups, recovery, replay, and replication, mySQL represents a major force. Unfortunately for mySQL and those who would have it take over the world, there's not much money available for those applications. Therefore, expect to see mySQL's installed base continue to increase while its revenue-based market share remains small.
For applications which do require features and levels of reliability and capability not offered by mySQL, postgres is the only serious freely-available contender. Even so, postgres is also somewhat less capable than Oracle or DB/2 and will be confined to the middle tier of applications - those which require better reliability and scalability than mySQL can provide but for which funding is scarce. Postgres probably does represent a serious threat to Microsoft's SQL Server, if only because Postgres is platform-independent and supports platforms which can scale beyond anything Windows can run on. Both are otherwise middle-tier products which are not and will never be taken seriously by the largest and most demanding database users.
Who are those users? Banks, government agencies, stock exchanges, payroll and records processing firms, insurance companies, large multi-site call centers, and other huge-scale enterprises. The top proprietary databases offer capabilities that do not yet exist in the Free Software world. For these users, who are less than 1% of all customers but which represent maybe 80% the revenue in the market, there is no substitute. These customers will stay with their existing solutions - Oracle, IBM, Sybase - until the systems running them give out. Then they'll call that company's professional services department and offer them a few million more to upgrade the system. That's the way it works. The system has to be attacked one customer at a time, an expensive and time-consuming process consisting of many lunches, legal bribes, and unrealistic promises.
I think the answer to whether mySQL is a significant threat to dominate the market economically is pretty obvious. Even if mySQL moves up to the middle tier to compete with Postgres and MSSQL and is installed in every application for which it is suitable, the product would still command less than 10% of the revenue in the market.
What a silly question.
Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if I'm dealing with a company that can't toss around the kind of money that you have to have for an Oracle DB, MySQL is my number one choice. I can slap the GUI of my choice on it, take care of data security with a hard backup and pocket a few grand of pure profit that I didn't have to spend on liscensing. You can argue Postgres, but I've never run into a case where I couldn't work around those features that haven't been implemented in MySQL yet.
The one thing I can't stand is when someone suggests: "I can't afford Oracle, so lets' go with a MSSQL database." That's like, I can't afford a space shuttle, and a ferarri isn't good enough for me, so I'm going to buy this million dollar llama instead because 1000 marketing agents can't be wrong, right?"
It has all the same feautres as Oracle, it's just that the features in Oracle WORK.
Just my
Get serious (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this a joke ? Forget, for a moment, the conclusions we're supposed to draw from 1) the observation that MySQL may run a lot of websites (this is about as relevant as pointing out that Hyundais outsell Ferraris - doesn't mean that Hyundais are superior vehicles), and 2) a lot of commercial websites might run MySQL (also about as relevant as pointing out that companies buy more Ford Focuses for their fleets than Hummers - doesn't mean the Focus is a 'better' vehicle than the Hummer).
mSQL is about as far away from providing the feature set of MySQL as MySQL is from providng the feature set of an Oracle or PostgreSQL - which is to say, worlds away. Sure, MAYBE mSQL is the tool for a particular job - but then we have to ask, are flat files a threat to the mSQLs and MySQLs - hell, the Oracles- of the world ? After all, flat files are free and we know they're in wide use in lots of companies.
Other open-source dbms (Score:5, Informative)
* Firebird [sourceforge.net] (ne: Borland Interbase)
* SAP-DB [sapdb.org] (ne: Adabas-D)
Both are good, high quality, commercial or formally commercial products released under an open source license. (interbase public license and GPL respectively)
Further, SAP-DB has excellent commerical support available from SAP, the company, at or better than the same level of responsiveness as, say, Oracle support.
Both are fantastic, enterprise level full ACID RDBMS's with all the great management features a heavy duty shop could want:
* online backups,
* transaction logs,
* restore to point in time
* subselects, views, rules/triggers, procedures, etc.
* great storage management
Check 'em out.
-- Pat
The other shoe has dropped (Score:3, Interesting)
During the last 18 months or so I have run my personal sites with a MySQL back end. I have never had an outage or loss of data that can be traced back to the MySQL servers. I ran it first on Windows 2000, later on freeBSD4.5 and now on a freeBSD4.6 jail. It still works perfectly.
Back when we were still arguing (two jobs ago) about using MySQL, the DBAs usually claimed that you could not trust MySQL because of the lack of stored procedures and the fact that it could not pass an ACID test. Since then I never bothered learning the DB system itself beyond the minimum needed for SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE operations, I did not try to verify this on my own. Years later and I am convinced that these DBAs probably read that in a magazine, and that none of them had even seen MySQL running.
After the dot-bomb nightmare nobody in his right mind should be proposing to their managers to spend obscene amounts of money in SQL Server and Oracle licenses just to do simple SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE operations. Sure, stored procedures rock but it does not make any sense to spend that much money just for the 1% of your functionality that will be run by stored procedures!
Most of the people I know that use SQL Server don't even know how to write one, and in the last 5 years I have only written two web applications that have more than 1% of their sql operations as stored procedures. And for Oracle it is even worse!
MySQL AB comments (Score:5, Informative)
Great discussions on this thread! We are reading them carefully to learn what we can do better.
Let me just comment on the overall impact of having such articles appear on Fortune.com and CNN.com:
The article is indeed the result of PR work done by MySQL AB, but the value of it will benefit the entire free software / open source community. We need to get many more business articles out there, so let's be happy about this one, and let's produce more of them!
Although this very article mentions MySQL only, please have a look at other articles where we at MySQL AB consistently mention the other open source databases. Here are two such articles on prominent business-focused sites (one of which, incidentally, is powered by MySQL):
= A2 44_0_1_0_C
http://www.open-mag.com/01943583279.htm
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id
Our ambition is not to be a threat to bigwigs per se, but to make superior database software available AND affordable to all. With your help we can do it.
Marten Mickos
CEO, MySQL AB
Summary of arguments for MySQL (Score:3, Insightful)
None of the above is new information. Just my personal summary. In short, (ie. in troll) the argument seems to be simply: "Yes, mysql is pathetic, but so are most of us." Great.
Re:And the answer is .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, technical correctness doesn't always win the day.
Re:And the answer is .... (Score:3, Insightful)
The more professional back room Postgres usage means it doesn't get much notice.
-Pete
Re:And the answer is .... (Score:4, Informative)
Phpbuilder.com [phpbuilder.com] did a series of benchmarks with mysql vs postgreSQL. Keep in mind this article is old and may be outdated. PostgreSQL was simple designed as a DBMS while mysql was designed as a fast sql filesystem for applications. They are made for different markets.
For simple operations mysql is faster but for a real RDBMS mysql is just catching up with PostreSQL. PostreSQL is generally more robust and speed picks up with higher loads over mysql. It supports true ansi 1992 sql, transaction support, Acid, replication, and other enhancements.
Re:Trouble for the bigwigs? (Score:2)
Re:Trouble for the bigwigs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Postgresql was way to hard to install... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Postgresql was way to hard to install... (Score:5, Informative)
SAP doing a deal with mySQL (Score:5, Interesting)
But the interesting thing is that SAP is currently working on a deal with mySQL, the details of which are unknown to me. If SAP was to throw their weight behind this, it could have a big impact. SAP is currently the world's largest Oracle reseller, and they gave a lot of credibility to Microsoft in the enterprise by supporting SQLServer. Likewise, their refusal to support Sybase was a major blow to that company when they were going blow-by-blow with Oracle.
SAP could be motivated to do this because of their animosity to Oracle, and because Microsoft is encroaching on their markets with the Great Plains and Navision acquisitions. This could be intersting to watch.
Re:If MySQL was just a bit more user-friendly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fully indexed, with user comments... I often find new techniques while searching for something completely unrelated. I think the great documentation is one of the reasons why MySQL has taken off, it's just so easy to learn.
Doug
Re:If MySQL was just a bit more user-friendly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, look at the dead-tree documentation available for each. Not only are there more MySQL books available than PostgreSQL ones, but the MySQL ones tend to be larger. For example, the New Riders MySQL book is over 400 pages longer than the PostgreSQL one - and their MySQL ti
Re:If MySQL was just a bit more user-friendly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If MySQL was just a bit more user-friendly... (Score:3, Interesting)
very much so more because you can't even do anything with them if ms decides so that you don't deserve it to work anymore. mysql is pretty much easy enough to install for somebody who wants to have alternative to ms-sql server, however sometimes people don't for very questionable reasons even want to look for change(and i'm not saying mysql would be the only best option either, just that most windoze users can even install it, mysql's website does offer very
Re:If MySQL was just a bit more user-friendly... (Score:3, Insightful)
So that's great, you blog well in PHP, but you utterly overstate the power of MySQL. MySQL will not even approach taking on the big database apps until they have a) subqueries and b) true ACID support. Many complex websites have stored procedures with subqueries in them, and it's logistically impossible for these sites to migrate to MySQL, since it would involve rewriting anything
Re:If MySQL was just a bit more user-friendly... (Score:3, Informative)
OMG, you didn't really mean that, did you? Oh, that's so cute...
MySQL is barely ACID compliant, doesn't support triggers or stored procs or views (just for starters), and you say it has the power to replace MSSQL Server?!?!? For goodness sakes, MySQL just NOW has a shared SQL area (query cache). You gotta crawl before you walk, and you gotta walk before you can run with the big boys. MySQL is a very capable database in its own right, but it's sti
Re:Ethical obligation? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't think that businesses (to a lesser extent, individuals) have an ethical obligation imposed by the community to share modifications made to an OSS project, you haven't been reading Slashdot or other forums of Free/OS software dis
Re:Ethical obligation? (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry.
The GPL, one of the licenses under which MySQL is distributed, states that if you re-distribute it, you are also required to share the changed source code.
My complaint was that the article was imprecise. If a company changes, but does not re-distribute MySQL, they are under no obligation at all, ethical or legal. If they re-distribute it then they are under a legal obligation to share their changes to anyone who uses it (not just MySQL AB).
Re:postgres, schmostgres... (Score:3, Informative)
That's hard? Give me a break. MySQL is so internally inconsistent that auto_increment is practically the only atom in the entire data definition syntax that uses the underscore! How about this bit of MySQL genius:
Which is the default: 42, or max(foo) + 1? The statement is internally inconsistent but MySQL allows it anyway. Nevermind
Re:postgres, schmostgres... (Score:4, Informative)
Uhuh.......... CREATE TABLE foo (bar SERIAL PRIMARY KEY); (PostgreSQL)
CREATE TABLE foo (bar INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY); (MySQL)
In both of the above tables, the bar column will behave pretty much the same way in each database. Yes, annoyingly difficult compared to MySQL because....... the syntax is different? Maybe if the first db you used was MySQL things seem "harder" because Postgres is a little different, but you'll see differences like that moving between any database.
In any case, even though I use Postgres, and prefer it over MySQL (which I have used extensively before), I am happy that opensource dbs are getting recognition out there.
Re:postgres, schmostgres... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, they actually make much more sense in Postgres than they do in MySQL because you can access them using a standard query rather than some bozo non-standard driver extension as in MySQL.
The problem with MySQL is that the lack of basic functionality like triggers, subselects, foreign keys makes it a total PITA except for the simplest applications. Sure you can write code that works around the implementation limitations, but WHY should I have to reinvent something over and over that should BE PART OF THE DATABASE?
You may think this stuff is esoteric, and not needed for the average blog or even e-commerce site, but that's baloney. FKEYS *ARE* needed for just about *ANY* database application except the most trivial - ie. an address book.
MySQL - forget it - it just isn't competitive with other free databases out there.
"rollbacks" are an advanced feature? (Score:4, Insightful)
Commit/rollback is an essential component to any decent data management system. Until you are absolutely sure that your data is correct -- that is to say, until you have done all of your transactions on the page successfully -- you should never actually write data to your database. Without using commit/rollback, you are stuck with the haphazard method of trying to manage potentially disastrous records of data showing up in your db.
Your other quote: "And MySQL will blow the doors off of Oracle and other databases in terms of raw speed" is similarly incorrect: MySQL may be faster when you are dealing with a small amount of connections, but as soon as your application starts getting any amount of concurrent users, MySQL is famous for falling down rather rapidly as it strains to write its data to disk.
MySQL cannot scale reliably, period. Having two database systems act as a pool, under MySQL, is a crapshoot at best. Unless you like designing single points of failure into your web applications, stay away from MySQL.
Simply put, if you expect your web application to get any amount of decent traffic (say 100,000 pageviews+ per day), then MySQL is simply not an option. Oracle is simply the standard upon which others can only attempt to compare themselves to. MySQL may be fine for the low-end "check out my k00l dynamic site!!11!!" crowd, but for professional web applications, MySQL has a long, long ways to go.
Re:"rollbacks" are an advanced feature? (Score:4, Informative)
FYI. 1.5M per day - we run MySQL. It has and continues to run like a champ every single day for the last 2+ years.
Of course, we've thrown some pretty high-end hardware at it to keep it running this long.
MySQL cannot scale reliably, period. Having two database systems act as a pool, under MySQL, is a crapshoot at best. Unless you like designing single points of failure into your web applications, stay away from MySQL.
Nail on the head here. InnoDB (the real seller for MySQL, since it gives them ACID compliance) *really* sucks under load. It starts chewing itself apart. Funny to watch, not funny to clean up - since you really can't.
We've been using replication in MySQL for backup purposes. (The replication has always been reliable for us) We can take the slave down for snapshots. But that is *all* we use it for.
MySQL will last us just long enough to finish our PostgreSQL migration.
Re:MySQL vs "bigwigs" (Score:5, Informative)
Mysql: Speed. Only.
Mysql is like a dragster, fast but no control.
Next time you want to start karmawhoring, at least pretend that you know what you are talking about.
Re:Replaceing MS Access (Score:3)
This will give you a nice blend of tremendous power and ease of use.
Re:which one? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://firebirdsql.org
it's had all these abilities for years.
I've had 76GB single-file databases on my FreeBSD machine since last year.
Faster than Postgres on everything but deletes, but it cleans up after itself when postgres just marks pages for deletion during the next sweep.
Same speed as MySQL on insert/update/delete.
Slightly slower on selects, but that's understandable.
After all, it does have:
Stored Procedures and Triggers using the same PL.
Views, cursors, custom dataty
Re:SAP DB (Score:3, Interesting)
SAP DB is a true, tested enterprise database - did anybody out there start using it when SAP open sourced it? Anybody??
Re:The odd thing about MySQL (Score:3, Insightful)
I use postgres when I'm concerned about data integrity, and speeding up writes to the database- if I'm doing a sufficiently complicated write to the DB, postgres' stored procedures make it a much better idea. I've used it for embedded-type monitoring and data collection applications.
So th
Re:PostgreSQL has every feature but Replication. (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, imagine that I have a bugs database (which I do; its called Bugzilla). I want to find all bugs where I'm either the reporter, or I've commented. Since bugs can have zero comments, I need to outer join the busg table to the accounts table. With randomly generated data, and 100,000 bugs, 1,000,000 comments randomly distributed among the com