Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MySQL Founder Starts Open Database Alliance, Plans Refactoring

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the database-shakeup dept.

Databases 153

Gary Pendergast writes "Monty Widenius, the 'father' of MySQL, has created the the Open Database Alliance, with the aim of becoming the industry hub for the MySQL open source database. He wants to unify all MySQL-related development and services, providing a potential solution to the fragmentation and uncertainty facing the communities, businesses and technical experts involved with MySQL, following the news of the Oracle acquisition of Sun." Related to this, an anonymous reader writes that "MySQL has announced a project to refactor MySQL to be a more Drizzle-like database." Update: 05/14 20:50 GMT by T : Original headline implied that this was a project of Sun, but (thanks to the open source nature of MySQL) it's actually Monty Widenius — no longer with Sun — leading this effort.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FIRST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956113)

FIRST

Re:FIRST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956947)

Since when did anyone care what a man named Monty Wideanus says?

PostgreSQL (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956169)

Just bite the bullet and port to it. In the process, you may have to learn a bit about how databases are actually supposed to work, but that's probably good for you.

Re:PostgreSQL (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27957527)

Where are my mod points when I need them....

Re:PostgreSQL (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959103)

In the process, you may have to learn a bit about how databases are actually supposed to work, but that's probably good for you.

That actually sounds like it plays into one of the MySQL talking points a little bit, so I want to assure all the MySQL+PHP developers out there that you won't have to - you might anyway, but you won't have to.

Re:PostgreSQL (1)

umeboshi (196301) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959431)

There was an april fools joke around here a couple of years ago.

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/01/1448207 [slashdot.org]

Perhaps it's time that this approach should be realized, instead of just joked about. This would allow people to to use the mysql api for their applications that require it, while providing a path to start using postgresql in the future.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27959845)

why the hell was this modded informative?

this is one of the silliest things I have read in days.

it should be +5 funny
not +5 informative.

Yes, but.... (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956197)

Did you go out there and talk to the Oracle? Did the Oracle come out into the sunlight and say anything at all...any gestures, groans, wild waving of hands, rolling of eyeballs...anything?

Can we go out and talk to the Oracle in person?

Dammit man, time is running out - we must speak to the Oracle....now, not later, right now!!!!

Re:Yes, but.... (4, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956625)

I don't get why they treat Oracle like AOL acquiring Netscape. It is a database development company which has no solution to fill MySQL'es place if I haven't mistaken.

I think after these incidents, large companies will think 1 billion times when they got the idea of acquiring an open source project. They treat Oracle like AOL for God's sake.

Re:Yes, but.... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957091)

I thought Oracle was a database? Is it different enough from MySQL to bother keeping both?

Re:Yes, but.... (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958993)

MySQL isn't a database.

Re:Yes, but.... (4, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959483)

I thought Oracle was a database? Is it different enough from MySQL to bother keeping both?

If you have to ask that question, just believe us when we answer "Yes."

Re:Yes, but.... (3, Insightful)

spauldo (118058) | more than 5 years ago | (#27960415)

Freightliners [freightlinertrucks.com] and Vespas [vespausa.com] are both vehicles.

Oracle is what you use if you have hundreds of millions of dollars, a team of DBAs, and your need for data storage is such that downtime is measured in thousands of dollars lost per minute.

MySQL is what you use if you've got ten employees (one of which knows a bit of PHP) and sell motorcycle parts over the internet and you don't feel like an ebay store would quite meet your need.

They're both great products (I assume, I'm not a DBA and haven't messed with oracle). They're both RDBMS's. They both run on just about any modern platform. They're not used for the same stuff.

Re:Yes, but.... (3, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957167)

It is a database development company which has no solution to fill MySQL'es place if I haven't mistaken.

Oracle has a number of lighter DB products, including Oracle Express Edition (XE) which is free (as in beer). They don't have anything (that I know of) that does the same kind of multi-backend thing that MySQL does, but certainly they have a number of products whose market niches at least overlap with that of MySQL.

(Also, Oracle is a lot more than a database development company and has certainly been more aggressively pushing into other areas; I suspect that their acquisition of Sun was more focussed on the non-MySQL parts of Sun than on MySQL.)

Re:Yes, but.... (2, Informative)

Doctor Faustus (127273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957709)

They don't have anything (that I know of) that does the same kind of multi-backend thing that MySQL does
Regular Oracle tables and index-organized tables have completely different physical implementations, and bitmap indexes have a completely different physical implementation from regular indexes. They're all ACID, though.

Re:Yes, but.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27957987)

Just figured I'd bring up here that since they've stated they plan to keep SPARC R&D going, maybe one of their big goals is to retain processor independence, while also leveraging an architecture that better coincides with their probable workloads (Sun's biggest feature has always been IO throughput and reliability and with their highly multithreaded chips they would seem to mesh well for the large scale databases that they'll be pushing.)

Re:Yes, but.... (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958145)

OK but none of the products gets hit because MySQL exists right? So, is there any reason other than insanity to undermine/conspire/kill MySQL? They act like there is fire in house and Oracle is the mad guy who started it. Did any of these people attempted to contact Oracle a single time relating to the future and independence of MySQL development?

Guess what will small companies choose if there is image of a chaos/forking rather than a known brand like Oracle when they hear MySQL name? Do you know the evil monopoly company who sells 400 dollar bulky Office products successfully in the age of 2009? Yes, they will win and as side effect, their OS monopoly will gain even more ground. All serves to them at the end, somehow.

Re:Yes, but.... (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958375)

OK but none of the products gets hit because MySQL exists right?

Since they have overlapping niches, probably some of Oracle's products, particularly at the low end, take a hit from MySQL. Since even their free low-end products are designed to be compatible with and provide an upgrade path to their pricier DB offerings while its probably as easy to go from MySQL to PostgreSQL-based EnterpriseDB, DB2, or MS SQL as from MySQL to Oracle, their certainly might be reasons why they'd rather, over the long term, either phase MySQL out or evolve it into something very different than it is now. They might not, too; its fairly popular, does have a commercial presence which (I assume) is profitable, and may bring enough to be worth keeping around even if it hurts sales of other Oracle products.

Re:Yes, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27958193)

Oracle has a number of lighter DB products, including Oracle Express Edition (XE) which is shit (as in poop).

FTFY.

Re:Yes, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27961453)

Yep! Oracle bought out Sleepycat that was once a backend (one of the bigger ones) for MySQL, just to see what would happen. They then swallowed up one or two more back ends, just to kill them (they aren't even offered as products anymore). Sleepycat wasn't a big database, in fact very very small. Oracle wants MySQL dead. Don't be confused. It hurts their bottom line. 20 million database driven websites would be forced to something else if MySQL was dead. Fortunately MySQL is at least partly GPL. I couldn't give a rats ass about what a commercial company wants. I know what I want! I'm willing to contribute to MySQL, so long as I get a stake in its long-term future. GPL and this project is that guarantee. Depending on Oracle is going the way of the Swammy. One day he's here, the next day, he's on the magic carpet gone back to the far unknown. Sun bought MySQL. Sun got bought by Oracle. Oracle didn't buy MySQL. Sun for a while tried to Fork MySQL. That backfired. Oracle WANTS TO KILL IT! They can't, but the commercial side of it they can. A fork is probably the best thing that can happen right now. Oracle can't prevent a fork, and even if the project forks, I still expect commercial support for MySQL (from Oracle) to go away very soon. That they haven't shut it down or 'merged' it at ungodly prices yet is a bit of a surprise, although its only been a few weeks. The ink isn't dry yet.

Refactoring Eh? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956211)

I do that when I write shitty code too.

YAY!!!! (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956217)

FORKIN' AYE!!!

This should be a GOOD thing, and hopefully it will move FAST, be stable, and be not politically hamstrung.

Re:YAY!!!! (4, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956695)

If they don't come up with a pure technical reason, a proof for forking the project rather than "big company hate" or conspiracy theories, they are already taking this decision politically.

If they think Oracle purchased Sun just to kill their project for 7.2 billion dollars in such state of Global economy, they are bordering megalomania.

Re:YAY!!!! (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956917)

See also Amiga Persecution Complex [catb.org] .

Re:YAY!!!! (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958205)

As a former Amiga user and one of OS/2 Victims, I really know that complex very well. It could be the reason why I think twice before bad mouthing any other company rather than the product/code in question itself.

Re:YAY!!!! (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958147)

If they don't come up with a pure technical reason, a proof for forking the project rather than "big company hate" or conspiracy theories, they are already taking this decision politically.

Why can't it just be that they have finally admitted that MySQL really sucks at anything but simple queries.

What they should do is start anew with the PostgreSQL codebase. It already has an Oracle "skin", so why not a MySQL "skin"

Re:YAY!!!! (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958885)

Its never what you think of the state of today, its what you think it'll be like tomorrow. As a result, no-one cares that Oracle bought MySQL, they care what Oracle will do with it - and a lack of vocal support usually means no interest in it.

As a result, the fork is a very pragmatic solution, get it forked today, get some impetus and media interest in it, and either Oracle will come out and confirm its continued support; or you'll know where to go to get MySQLv2.

And Oracle bought Sun for Solaris, I reckon they don't give 2 figs for MySQL.

Fo Shizzle (3, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956365)

Myizzle SQL be-izzle lizzleke Drizzle.

why? (4, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956481)

For apps that need basic SQL functionality and aren't particularly-high load, I use SQLite. For app that need advanced SQL or high load, I use Postgres. I can't imagine a scenario when I would chose to use MySQL (or MS SQL, for that matter).

Re:why? (2, Informative)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956521)

Existing products - there's some software packages people like to use from the open source world that are tied to MySQL.

But yeah, if I had any choice, there'd be no instances in which I'd pick MySQL over SQLite or Postgres.

Re:why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956801)

Every fucking time there's a MySQL article, you Postgres trolls come out of the woodwork. Give it a fucking rest, already. We're talking about MySQL, not your beloved Postgres.

WHY use MySQL? Gee, because it's well documented, it plays nicely with Perl and PHP, it's available on nearly every corporate hosting package, there's good documentation and websites, etc etc etc. You can't say the same for Postgres.

Re:why? (4, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956959)

WHY use MySQL? Gee, because it's well documented,

That's certainly a good thing, i'll give you that.

it plays nicely with Perl and PHP,

I just threw up. As my keyboard shorted in its vomit bath, it outputted a random string of characters and symbols, which just happen to execute without warnings when piped to perl.

Re:why? (5, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958731)

I just threw up. As my keyboard shorted in its vomit bath, it outputted a random string of characters and symbols, which just happen to execute without warnings when piped to perl.

Is the new slashcode out already?

Re:why? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956963)

What about Postgres can't play well with Perl? What do you think the point of DBI is?

If you have corporate hosting that won't let you install whatever you want, get a better host.

There's a ton of MySQL websites because everyone is struggling to make MySQL do anything useful.

Re:why? (2)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957031)

Every fucking time there's a MySQL article, you Postgres trolls come out of the woodwork. Give it a fucking rest, already. We're talking about MySQL, not your beloved Postgres.

Fair enough. However...

WHY use MySQL? Gee, because it's well documented, ..., there's good documentation and websites, etc etc etc. You can't say the same for Postgres.

That's bullshit. The PostgreSQL is among the very best I've ever seen for any piece of software, open- or closed source. And I've seen _lots_ of it...

Re:why? (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957035)

WHY use MySQL? Gee, because it's well documented, it plays nicely with Perl and PHP, it's available on nearly every corporate hosting package, there's good documentation and websites, etc etc etc. You can't say the same for Postgres.

IME, you can pretty much say all of that for Postgres, Postgres "official" documentation and third-party "how-to" information, on the web, in dead trees, and otherwise, is as good, or better, than MySQL documentation (though the total volume is somewhat lower, the coverage and quality seems equally good or better), Postgres plays very nicely with scripting languages (though I've used it with Ruby far more than Perl or PHP); the only advantage I see to MySQL on the points you make is that there are somewhat fewer hosting packages that offer PostgreSQL.

Re:why? (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957061)

MySQL is not well documented. It's got horrible documentation. Granted, it's got lots of it (and everything is there somewhere), but it's all horrible: Specifics of syntax and usage are often spread through half-dozen pages for a single command, with no linkage between them in the HTML.

As for 'playing nicely'... You've obviously never tried to get the Perl DBI working with MySQL on RedHat. As far as I can tell, the process is 'Recompile it. All of it. Again.' I spent two weeks trying to get it to work. Our scripts (that have to work with MySQL) currently output to a temp file and then run that via a call to shell.

I'll give you 'available on nearly every hosting package'. But then, so is Windows.

Re:why? (5, Funny)

rho (6063) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957337)

MySQL is well documented so that all the bugs are turned into features:

Mein Broder: So, in MySQL, when you exceed the maximum size of a TEXT column, does it throw an exception, or does it just truncate the data to fit?

Me: Well, it being MySQL, it will probably do something differently on Tuesdays than it does on the vernal equinox... but it probably will throw an exception and bitch about how you suck at data planning. Which is the proper thing to do, because who would want their database silently truncating data?

Mein Broder: In this case, I'd actually prefer it, 'cause otherwise I'd have to programmatically truncate it myself. These data aren't really that important, and truncating would be acceptable. It would be nice if I could be a lazy programmer.

Me: I think you're out of luck. But let's take a look:

MySQL Manual -- If you assign a value to a BLOB or TEXT column that exceeds the column type's maximum length, the value is truncated to fit.

Me: Astounding. Your desire to be a lazy, shiftless programmer has been facilitated by other lazy, shiftless programmers who have built the world's most rickety database management system.

Re:why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27957435)

You're one to call being lazy, sending crap to a database and have it bitch back to tell you that you're the one who fucked up. Oh yeah that's so not being lazy by not checking the data first before tossing it to the database for storage...

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958347)

What's the most negative number MySQL can store?

I'm asking because that's your score at reading comprehension.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27959975)

What's the most negative number MySQL can store?

Is there such a thing as "the most negative" number? "-3 is more negative than -2" sounds weird.

Re:why? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#27961707)

Database 101 - the most important part of a database is to keep your data integrity, including telling you to go put your query where the sun don't shine if your data doesn't fit the schema.

Telling the program that the query you just submitted is fine and dandy and then changing the data is - if not the biggest nono in a database - a top 10 thing you just don't do.

Re:why? (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#27961897)

perl -MCPAN -e 'install Bundle::DBD::mysql'

There, that wasn't hard, was it ?

Re:why? (1)

A. Bosch (858654) | more than 5 years ago | (#27960899)

Not sure why this was modded "Troll" nor am I understanding why GP is "Informative". I have to agree; there's a lot of MySQL bashing by Postgres wonks. Move on.

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

chickenandporn (848524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957003)

Many of us MySQL users see your Postgres question the same way: why use Postgres? There's 10 users of Postgres, and if I randomly toss both names into a room, I don't have to explain what MySQL is. Hell, half think I said "postfix" and leave the room.

What's MS SQL? OK, I'm kidding, but it makes me wonder if you've checked MySQL lately. I haven't had a reason to check Postgres, so I maybe just-as-satisfied with MySQL as you are with Postgres.

MySQL works for many of us. We don't want to switch to a different database in this tier of performance/cost. Plus, it's well-known outside of its fan-base, and is supported by a host of servers.

I'm not inviting a Postgres-vs-the-world fight here, I'm pragmatic, and the one that works and has better compatibility TODAY is MySQL. Maybe next year, that'll be Postgres among the circles I work in. Today, that tier is held by MySQL, smaller to SQLite, and larger to Oracle.

Re:why? (5, Informative)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957147)

MySQL works for many of us.

I didn't ask if it worked. I asked in what scenario it would be a superior option (to the well-informed application architect, of course). The only real reason you gave is that you don't know much about Postgres. That means you're not really qualified to answer the question.

Does it scale better? Does it have better security? Is it easier to manage in some way? Is there a killer feature its two closest competitors lack? Those might be actual answers to the question. "I don't know much about it" is not an answer.

It's certainly commonly perceived that Postgres will scale better, and that it has a rather complete featureset. If this is indeed the case, I can't see a reason to select MySQL for a new project. Why limit yourself?

Re:why? (5, Informative)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957691)

MySQL is better because I know how to use it and it works well enough. If I were to switch to Postgres, then I would have to spend time learning it.

My manager would rather me move some other feature forward rather than replace database A with database B.

When we hire somebody new, it is easier to find candidates who already know MySQL. That matters too.

-ec

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27959151)

Fortunately, you're not at risk of learning something.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#27961683)

People like you are undermining the industry. You straddle around claiming to be a database developer with x years under the belt, but you are in fact putting your clients data in grave danger and when shit finally hits the fan on your mysql installation you are going to wish you listened to the people who knew better.

Re:why? (1)

chickenandporn (848524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957867)

Maybe I misread your post -- you were asking why we don't change from MySQL to Postgres, since MySQL is the default server in most cases.

You were also converting a question about MySQL into an argument of "Postgres vs MySQL"; I was trying to explain why we don't change to Postgres. See, change-to-Postgres is an important part: there's no obvious benefit that outweighs the cost of changing. The cost of changing is also the cost of changing all of our dependencies to use Postgres.

So "why don't we change to Postgres?" Because it works, it's wellknown (we don't have to explain it), it has more compatibilities in the products our areas use.

Better than Postgres? Who cares? Maybe it is. We haven't had a reason to consider that, we're too busy getting to work, getting things done. p.I don't expect you to read this far; I expect you to take apart small subtle spelling mistakes, but you can take my lack of response to mean "hey, he's working, rather than wasting time debating bike shed paint colour options"

Re:why? (1)

JackARot (1554025) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957933)

Maybe I misread your post -- you were asking why we don't change from MySQL to Postgres, since MySQL is the default server in most cases.

You seem to be barely able to read since that's not what he said at all. He said:

For app that need advanced SQL or high load, I use Postgres. I can't imagine a scenario when I would chose to use MySQL (or MS SQL, for that matter).

No where in there does it ask why people aren't switching over. He was saying he can't imagine a scenario for why he would choose MySQL over Postgres.

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

chickenandporn (848524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958181)

It's an interesting question then; the situations I see are the opposite: MySQL is the compatible solution already functioning, and a user would have to choose to change to Postgres.

Hey ("barely able to read"), thanks for being childish. It adds humour.

Re:why? (1)

JackARot (1554025) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958267)

It's an interesting question then; the situations I see are the opposite: MySQL is the compatible solution already functioning, and a user would have to choose to change to Postgres.

Change what? You still seem to be unable to comprehend what he said. He was saying that if he was writing a new app that required a SQL database that he can't see any reason to choose MySQL over Postgres. Where are you seeing anything about changing databases? And secondly how is Postgres not a compatible solution that already functions? In what way is it either incompatible or nonfunctional?

Hey ("barely able to read"), thanks for being childish. It adds humour.

Well considering how you seem to be unable to comprehend basic English sentences one has to question your ability (or inability as it seems) to read.

Re:why? (1)

mzs (595629) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958413)

Look-up a bunch of cheap hosting providers. How many have postgres? How many have mysql? See why you might choose mysql over postgres (or db2 or sysbase or oracle) for non-technical reasons?

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

JackARot (1554025) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958491)

Look-up a bunch of cheap hosting providers. How many have postgres? How many have mysql?

You do realize that it's not just web apps that use databases right?

See why you might choose mysql over postgres (or db2 or sysbase or oracle) for non-technical reasons?

No, I just see a reason not to use a cheap hosting provider.

Re:why? (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958801)

Look-up a bunch of cheap hosting providers. How many have postgres?

Fewer than offer MySQL, but enough that if PostgreSQL is the right DB choice for technical reasons, this just means you don't choose one of the hosting providers that don't support PostgreSQL, not that you choose MySQL.

(Assuming, of course, that you are building a web app where a discount shared hosting service is the right choice to start with; of course, not all apps for which a DB is needed are web apps, and not all web apps are those for which a discount shared hosting service makes good sense.)

But, sure, if you are artificially constrained to choose from one of set of hosting providers, none of which offer PostgreSQL and some of which offer MySQL, that's certainly a reason to choose MySQL. But that sounds like a result of a bad planning process, not something that should ever occur in the implementation of a new application.

Re:why? (2, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959235)

PostGres competing with MySQL is like alpha competing with Intel.

Even though IMO PG is technically superior in every way, MySQL is more widely supported, both directly and indirectly as a backend for many systems.

In fact, I am building a personal website and I want to add a message board. Guess which database backend every single one of them supports?

And until everyone else above me in the supply chain overcomes their collective inertia, my hands are tied because as of yet I do not have sufficient temporal resources (i.e. spare time) to implement a board myself.

facebook uses it (5, Informative)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957875)

...I saw in one presentation their chief architect did. They had no complaints about it; apparently it scales brilliantly as long as the db schema is very simple.

For heavy-weight databases though, I gather it's not so good.

Re:why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27958043)

I'm going to state something controversial, but for many applications security doesn't belong in the database, just like business logic. I would say this applies to most new web based applications developed today with ORM tools like Hibernate, but as always, there are exceptions.

MySQL's killer functionality is the ability to plug in different database engines. So, for example, MySQL can be both a transactional database with InnoDB and a column based database with Infobright.

Both are good, but I would say MySQL (with drizzle in particular) is focusing on the future of databases in the cloud and Postgres is focused on replicating the functionality of databases designed for corporate environments. Both are important environments and will remain so for quite some time.

Re:why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27958573)

I was actually involved in the decision at my business to switch from Postgresql to MySQL, and documentation ended up being the deciding factor. Now I've been using Postgresql personally and professionally for years, and I love the database, but two days with the documentation for the various clustering / replication sub-projects was enough to make my brain hemmorage. It's like they took legitimate documentation in some language, randomly truncated one sentence every other paragraph, and then ran the whole thing through a series of babelfish translations before posting it to the web. Compare that with the MySQL online documentation and numerous third-party publications and you end up hard pressed to argue for Postgresql once you reach the boundaries of your experience and need to rely on published documents to move forward in a timely fashion.

Re:why? (3, Funny)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959703)

> I asked in what scenario it would be a superior option (to the well-informed application architect, of course).

Of course because MySQL's root password comes empty so the Agile developers avoid losing their costly time waiting for the local database nerd configuring the permissions and bothering the team with more passwords to remember....

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27959705)

Does it scale better? Actually it does, at least the 5.4 branch, when compared to postgres 8.3 branch (http://dimitrik.free.fr/db_STRESS_MySQL_540_and_others_Apr2009.html).

Does it have better security? Not really.

Is it easier to manage in some way? That depends on the usage scenario. Several tools developed outside mysql make the usual cases actually easy to manage.

Is there a killer feature its two closest competitors lack? Yep, plugable storage engines, documentation, mysql cluster.

Roundup:
Until recently, mysql didnt scale so well as postgres. That changed and imho wont change back for a while. Mysql's pluggable storage engines allow to fit the server towards many more use scenarios then postgres can ever dream of - there is no one size fits all solution. Cons to mysql are that its quirky, has long standing bugs and to most people the project's politics are a complete mess. Postgres definitely wins when it comes to features, its more customizable security model and in some cases its manageability and license. Nice things about postgres are serverside languages and point in time recovery. Postgres can easily get CPU bound, doesnt understand query caching.

Mysql was, is and will be the default database for most web-related stuff - postgres fanboys should get over it. Mysql has the sister project Drizzle which now servers mysql as a testbed for different approaches to solving problems. Mysql started to focus on solving longstanding bugs, improve performance and is in the painful process of opening up and involving community.

So, both databases have their usage scenario. Neither one will disappear. Ever. But my bet goes with mysql/drizzle in the long run (meaning that mysql will equal postgres plus stuff not in postgres).

Re:why? (2, Informative)

Cow Jones (615566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959737)

I asked in what scenario it would be a superior option

I'm with you on that - in the last 7 years, I've used PostgreSQL exclusively for projects that were under my control. I'm subscribed on the mailing lists, I know about all the misconceptions regarding performance, and I know that MySQL is nowhere near as reliable and professional as PG.

But since you asked: I'm still running MySQL on most of the servers, and the reason for that (the only reason) is third party support. When you're installing a web-based CMS, or bulletin board, or bug tracker, or gallery, or whatever, chances are it will work better with MySQL. The people who write these things are often more familiar with MySQL, and Postgres support (if available) is sketchy at best. Try Drupal with PG, for example. The core modules work fine, sure, but as soon as you start installing some of the more exotic modules you'll run into trouble.

I've given up trying to force these applications to play nice with Postgres. They can use MySQL if they have to, and I'll stick to a real database for data that matters.

CJ

Re:why? (2, Informative)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957683)

Is sounds like you are saying that because it gets a lot of press causing a lot of people to know the name, then it must be the best database server out there. And it is more compatible and works better because of that? WTF? What the hell do you mean by compatible by the way?

More people know or knew how to program in Visual Basic than in Java or C or C++. Does that mean it is a better programming language and more compatible? You are going to tell me that what I just wrote doesn't make sense. And you would be correct. But neither did your statement. I also used Visual Basic as an example on purpose. Being popular doesn't make it the best, and using the most popular tool doesn't make the best programmer and subsequently the best code.

Both databases have JDBC and ODBC drivers, meaning both can be accessed by business systems requiring an RDBMS. They both use SQL, granted both have variations in the SQL statements as do all RDMBSs (but this should be a non-issue for new development as the differences are not great).

There is one area I think will differ greatly, and that is in database/schema design. Most/many MySQL-Java shops I have seen have poor database designs, especially when the Java programmers rely too heavily on Hibernate to create the design, which is almost always. I think Hibernate is a good tool if used appropriately, but there are too many cases of people using ORM ONLY to create their database, and don't think about the database design any other way. This leads to very poor and inefficient database design. Even at my present company, a high tech start up where much of the server side code and databases where built this way. The databases are now dragging their MySQL asses now that the volume of data is increasing. Not necessarily because of it being MySQL, but because the use of ORM ONLY to create the database design. I'm not saying that this can't happen in a Postgres shop, but I normally see more deliberate database designing where Postgres is used. Perhaps because it isn't quite as light weight it may require better designers to use it, which leads to better database designs. Similar to how C and C++ require more highly trained and deliberate programmers than Java in order to produce good code.

Flame on!

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957249)

This is one major reason why I refuse to use PostgreSQL: VACUUME [postgresql.org] for the fail.

Why the hell do we have to hand hold PostgreSQL to get it to clean up after its self? MySQL has no problem doing it on its own nor does any other databases that I know of require such an operation. Its also quite lame to run a dedicated daemon to monitor and tell PostgreSQL to clean up its mess. Another thing which was a past problem was the user permissions were just terribly implemented making it a complete joke to use for multi-user environments. Now it does appear that was resolved [postgresql.org] .

The reason why I really have such a huge problem with VACUUM is that there is just no way in hell that a user program could ever know a good time to issue the cleaning procedure, that should be the database's job, not the user program period because it won't ever know about all the transactions going on and so forth. Imagine if the Linux kernel required root to issue some commands to have the kernel clean up after cache handling messes every once in a while to ensure continuing operation of the operating system and then a couple years later the devs figured creating a dedicated daemon to automate the command issuing tasks would be sufficient... it just doesn't make sense.

Re:why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27957515)

Maybe you should have followed your link:

"Fortunately, The Auto-Vacuum Daemon monitors table activity and performs VACUUMs when necessary. This eliminates the need for administrators to worry about disk space recovery in all but the most unusual cases."

Re:why? (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957551)

You'll be glad to hear about the autovacuum [postgresql.org] built into PostgreSQL versions 8.1+. (Ok, so it's not on by default yet. One configuration switch.)

I could give you the good reasons for having VACUUM run separately, (Actually, it's often easier to know from outside when your database is going to be busy...), but in general I agree having to run VACUUM was a pain. I'm glad it's no longer needed.

Re:why? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957575)

Actually, VACUUM has been automatic for a few years now. The dedicated daemon has gone away too and been merged into the server process.

And sometimes it may make sense to manually scheduling VACUUM. For instance if you never delete from a table there's no need to bother trying to vacuum it. If you have a very high load, it may make sense to defer it until a low load time. It also makes sense to manually run it after making big changes to the database (like restoring a backup for instance).

But in current releases it works fine on its own and there's no need to mess with it unless you have a special need for it.

Re:why? (4, Informative)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959547)

For instance if you never delete from a table there's no need to bother trying to vacuum it.

Not quite. Because of the way postgres operates (MVCC) UPDATEs will result in space appearing in table structures too. With an MVCC based DB nothing is updated in-place (actually, in any good DB nothing is updated in-place, but with MVCC this is more obviously implied by any good description of how things work with multiple distinct transactions present). When a row is updated new version is added and the old version is removed when the transaction is complete and no other transactions might refer to the old copy. This has significant advantages for some use cases and loads, and some disadvantages in other

The wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiversion_concurrency_control) isn't a great description though there is a bit more relevant information in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_isolation [wikipedia.org] .

I've not used postgres much in anger, so I'm no expert, but personally I thought that being able to manually schedule cleanup was a good idea performance wise.

Re:why? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959847)

Oops. You're right there.

Re:why? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27957629)

Ok, so the problem with manual vacuum was resolved a long time ago. I agree they should have done it an even longer time ago, but it's done now. Time to move on with your life.

Re:why? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957641)

I imagine the intent is for database administrators to issue that command during scheduled maintenance windows. I agree that an "auto vacuum" feature would be preferable for many people. Is "auto vacuum" the major advantage of MySQL over Postgres, then?

Re:why? (1)

transwarp (900569) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958809)

I just read the Postgres manual page another Slashdotter pointed to, and checked my own Postgres installations in Gentoo and openSuSE. Auto vacuum exists, and is enabled by default.

Re:why? (3, Informative)

bmartin (1181965) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958763)

I can't imagine a scenario when I would chose to use MySQL (or MS SQL, for that matter).

I work for a Fortune 500 company. We use MySQL with J2EE and Hibernate in a production environment. Postgres would be our fall-back option if MySQL ever stopped doing the trick for us, but it scales well to thousands of users.

MySQL can easily be configured for use as a production-quality database. We also use Oracle and DB2 on an i5 for certain purposes, but our biggest app (in terms of company scope and $$) employs MySQL in the back-end.

That's why :-P

Re:why? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27960265)

OK, so MySQL is more easily configured than Postgres? I must say the DBs I've set up have done fine with default configurations, both Postgres and MySQL. But I'll take your word for it that configuration is easier for your apps, which I assume are higher load than the defaults of either will handle gracefully. That sounds like a legit reason.

Re:why? (0, Troll)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959625)

Either you have a very limited imagination, or you are exaggerating because you are biased. In either case, you have rendered your opinion useless.

Re:why? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27960333)

There's no information in your post. Please try your troll again.

Re:why? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 5 years ago | (#27961441)

My post was not a troll, but making unprovable statements that don't include any facts that start with "I can't imagine" typically are. On the off chance I mistook your statement as a blatent troll, perhaps you could elaborate on what you meant by "I can't imagine a scenario when I would chose to use MySQL (or MS SQL, for that matter)". What was your reasoning for saying it? What idea were you trying to convey to us?

Did you mean to show us that you have a very limited imagination that couldn't possibly include any situation that you would EVER use MySQL, but perhaps other people with more imagination might be able to? Or were you trying to say that your imagination is large that you've thought about every conceivable situation that has happened, is currently happening, or will ever happen and in every case SQLite or Postgres is better, and we should take your word for it?

Re:why? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27961593)

You've outsmarted me! Yes you figured out that I am trying to tell you I have a "very limited imagination."

Or you could read sibling posts. Or you could keep on trollin. You're at strike 2 for having content.

Heh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956511)

An Open Database Alliance where the only database allowed is MySQL? Kinda reminds me of the World Series, where the only teams are from the USA.

Re:Heh (1)

emarks (1190825) | more than 5 years ago | (#27961541)

That's true. Those Canadian teams (now team) suck hard!

What is his motive? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956637)

Though he contributed a lot to MySQL, he is the one who benefited most from MySQL when it was sold to Sun. So, we as a community contributed to MySQL, he took all the contributions, packaged it nicely and sold to Sun for 1 billion USD. Now that his contract with Sun is over, he is there again asking community to contribute more but not for the original MySQL because he does't own it. He wants all of you to contribute for a clone that he is going to own so that he can make more money in future.

Re:What is his motive? (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956859)

You're free to do the same. What's the issue?

Who? (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956675)

HEADLINE: MySQL Creates Open Database Alliance, Plans Refactoring

MySQL the database application? It created a new alliance? It plans to refactor itself? Astonishing, if true.

MySQL the software company? Uh, not, because Monty no longer has any connection with them.

You mean Monty did these things. Not "MySQL". His identification with MySQL is pretty strong, but I don't think they'll merge any time soon!

ATHF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27956823)

Drizzle...

from the database-SHAKEup dept.?

Aqua Teen Hunger Force!

I'm confused (3, Interesting)

Stone316 (629009) | more than 5 years ago | (#27956975)

I'll admit, I haven't followed MySQL that much but i'm confused as to the state its in now. With the original founders going off and doing related stuff it seems pretty fragmented.

Can someone piece it all together?

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27959457)

Let me sum this up for you then...

The future of MySql as we know it is serious jeopardy due to a couple companies and a few programmers.

Sun buys MySql project and hires the lead developer, programmer disagrees with company's direction and leaves, company gets bought out by another bigger shittier company named Oracle, who hasn't understood what a db or software dev was in over 20 (hince the 10 year old crappy 32x32 of a turtle).

Programmer leaves but still wants to control his project but unfortunately lost all rights to work on it without going through shitty company.

Put it this way, I won't be installing any newer builds from either party, particularly during major refactoring.

Re:I'm confused (2, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#27961753)

No one can, you got several companies having their greased fingers involved, you got several different licensing systems for the same code base and the original developers all split into new forked projects.

MySql - TheirSql (2, Funny)

hey (83763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957055)

suggested name change.

MySQL AB ver. 2? (5, Insightful)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 5 years ago | (#27957487)

It was during MySQL AB's time that MySQL began a stange play with the community by first dropping official community binary builds, and then severely delaying source code releases as well (while supplying commercial clients with more stable and up to date releases).

It was again during MySQL AB's time when the announcement came that MySQL's source code base will start to "close down", by releasing many new features only commercially, and with no open source code. When Sun bought MySQL AB, they reversed those policies and stood behind MySQL being open, without exceptions.

Now Mr. Monty Widenius has taken the money Sun paid for MySQL AB, and used it to open a new company and an "Open" alliance which is "designed to become the industry hub for the MySQL open source database, including MySQL and derivative code, binaries, training, support, and other".

If even Mr. Widenius has noble intentions regarding MySQL, his past in MySQL AB and his current interaction with Sun/Oracle seem to leave another impression.

Re:MySQL AB ver. 2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27958383)

I'm glad I'm not the only person that feels like this guy is running a huge scam.

fp Cu+2m (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27957759)

sanctions, and The reaper BSD's trouble. It Volume of NetBSD wall: *BSD faces a another troubled I ever did. It = 1440 NetBSD engineering project

what did Sun buy? lessons in OSS acquisitions (3, Interesting)

cowdung (702933) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958279)

A lesson in Open Source acquisitions:

1. Monty starts db called MySQL, trademarks and has copyright
2. Monty sells trademarks and copyrights to Sun (presumably for a ton of cash)
3. Monty leaves Sun
4. Monty forks MySQL calls it MariaDB

So in the end.

Sun has:
1. A trademark
2. Rights to the code
3. Right to sell MySQl under any license

Monty has:
1. GPL'd code he does not own
2. Credibility as the guy who knows about this
3. The ability to continue selling support services

So in OSS when you buy a product you don't really get too much do you? (At least if you can't hang onto the developers)

Re:what did Sun buy? lessons in OSS acquisitions (3, Interesting)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959509)

> So in OSS when you buy a product you don't really get too much do you?

I think they got a lot from it: Monty is completely hamstrung because he doesn't own a line of the code in his new "Open" database. Unless he rewrites from scratch he is stuck with GPL even if he wants to give his code to his own wife. And that also means that no serious commercial company can use it because even the drivers are GPL (*not* LGPL) which means as soon as you touch it even to open a connection your own product turns to GPL (unless you buy a license from Oracle).

IMHO, the first thing that needs to happen (and which should have happened years ago) is that the MySQL GPL drivers need to be clean-room rewritten so at least you can link non-GPL code with it. Until then I've got no interest in it and it loses to PostgreSQL before I even get to thinking about a technical comparison (and please note: I've got nothing against GPL in general, I just don't want it forced inside my own processes by my database).

Monty Widenius (4, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27958389)

*Opens the envelope*

What do you call a game show host in a goatse pose?

Re:Monty Widenius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27959771)

Mod me whatever but I swear every time I read it as Monty Wide-anus and a weird caricature comes into my head.

!alliance (1)

Samah (729132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959241)

This is hardly an "alliance" if it's centred around MySQL. If the ODA had been formed from teams from many of the popular DBMS's, then yes I would call it an alliance.

Someone has to do it (1)

Thalaric (197339) | more than 5 years ago | (#27959621)

I would question this guy's motives trying to take back MySQL after selling it to Sun, if it wasn't for the fact that Sun and now Oracle have done such a poor job with it. Whether or not you hate MySQL, if it's going to improve it needs someone to move the project forward.

Does anyone really see Oracle doing that?

Re:Someone has to do it (1)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27960385)

fact that Sun and now Oracle have done such a poor job with it.

If it's a fact can you point to some evidence of what Sun and Oracle (which doesn't yet own and control Sun/MySQL) have done that can be classified as a poor job that wasn't happening before Sun bought it?

When Sun bought it, the old MySQL AB execs were talking about keeping some new stuff closed but Sun made them open source it.

Some of the latest releases probably came out too early (according to Monty) but that's not any different than when MySQL AB was it's own entity.

Since Sun bought MySQL they kept it more open and increased it's revenue.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?