Slashdot Mirror


MySQL A Threat to Bigwigs?

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."

6 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. typical by houseofmore · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Of course, there's no mention of PostgreSQL or mSQL, but I guess that's typical."

    The article is about an open source product posing a threat to bigwigs. Is it typical that mSQL and Postgress are not mentioned because they do not (yet anyway) pose any meaningful threat to the bigwigs. Like it or not, MySQL has far more supporters and users than either mMSQL or Postgres.

  2. Hardforum by BHearsum · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but about a year and half ago a big gaming/computer forum was running MySQL with vBulletin as the frontend. Horrible permorance. They had top-end Xeon servers dedicated completely to MySQL, and they still had about an hour of downtime everyday. I'm not sure if this true all the time, but in this case, MySQL could not handle heavy loads. They had to end up taking out there 'General Mayhem' forum, where more than half the traffic was.

  3. Oh, wow, I am out of my league... by multiOSfreak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Truly, I just assumed so much in my first post. I had not idea that there would be so many high-level sys-admins watching and posting here. Foolish me. I have no idea what I was thinking.

    MS-SQL is the best thing ever. It is the only DB that can handle big loads. IT was the first and only. Yeah, Oracle is crappy. I had no trouble talking my way into a $15k standard version for my company. What was I thinking?

    When I need advice, I assume I can count on this convocation of true nerds to help me out?

  4. Relational integrity? Subqueries? by Otis_INF · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    All nice, but MySQL doesn't offer a lot on the area of relational integrity (constraints, triggers). Also it doesn't support subqueries so you are 'joining' a lot.

    The 4 CRUD actions are not the total picture you need, for even a small database driven webapplication. And if price is a problem, postgresql is far better: it offers relatonal integrity, sports subqueries and more. MySQL is _NEVER_ the best option. NEVER.

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
  5. Bull. by Otis_INF · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.
    Really? Now, how did you implement relational integrity? You added a lot of queries to perform the relational integrity? You can't! You can't add relational integrity by code ON TOP of a database system. Especially not in a multi-user environment. Especially with a database system which doesn't support transactions. So you can first test with an sql statement, and based on that result, perform some actions, but those 2 things are not 1 atomic unit. So just after the test-statement is done, another user could be messing with your data. Oh, you are not going to tell me you lock primary key rows when inserting a foreign key, are you?

    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.
    Whoa, sherlock! You are saying that features in MSSQL don't work but they do in Oracle? Please, can you give me a list of them, so I can use that list in my daily work, so I can avoid features that are not working in MSSQL.

    MSSQL is worlds fastest database AND supports true ACID compliance, stored procedures, views, partitioned views etc. etc. It also costs a hell of a lot less than Oracle. Oracle does have more features though. But... why wouldn't it be a reasonable choice? Because the features don't work but they do in Oracle?

    Have you ever worked with a true database management system? I have the fear you haven't

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
  6. Damnit! by jeremiahstanley · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Fuck mSQL! That is a piece of shit product!