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."
MySQL has the power (pretty much) to replace MS-SQL Server. That's not a question. The problem is that MySQL is a "at your own risk" type of application. The company doesn't really offer a robust support option. You get the software for free, and if you know how to use it (or can afford a trial-by-fire learning period), you can save money. Otherwise, it's an exotic but dangerous alternative.
I fully support the use of MySQL (or even PostGRE-SQL) with PHP over ASP(x) + SQL-Server. However, (good) documentation is a real killer in the open-source movement. Until there is quality documentation, MySQL will remain an experimental, fringe DB.
I know there are good 3rd-party books, but there should be a decent doc from the actual application developer. Otherwise, the perception is that the company only cares about DIY computer geeks. Maybe it's just me.
Transistors and Beer!!
Very well said. MySQL is slower than crap if you attempt to do anything but simple selects. In Oracle or Postgres, one query can often replace two or more queries required in MySQL.
I submitted this 3 days ago....
Here are your recent submissions to Slashdot, and their status within the system:
* 2003-03-13 22:59:22 MySQL: A real alternative for your DB (articles,biz) (rejected)
Guess someone felt otherwise now. Feel free to mod me down.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I had to do some work on a Postgres system over the weekend. I come from a MySQL background.
Having heard people (a handful of noisy Postgres users I suspect) rant about how much better Postgres is and how unfair it is that MySQL is the No1 open source database, I had high hopes for my first experience.
I was quite disappointed. There are bugs. And those bugs have bugs. And the bugs' bugs have bugs too. You can't import from a backup made by a different verion of Postgres. That was my first problem. The older version I was using was trying to parse the comment marks (---). OK. So I upgraded to the latest version. The GUI (pgadmin) didn't work. I frigged with it for a while and decided to give up and get back to work. The command-line psql segfaults. Now that is a SERIOUS problem. I have never seen the MySQL client segfault, and I have used it a lot. Then there are stupid, stupid things like not being able to delete a column, or change a column type. Having used MySQL, I took those things for granted. I am always changing a column type to varchar(x) and pruning garbage off it (eg dollar signs and commas) and then converting it back to a numeric (double) field. Can't do it in Postgres. Why? I assume it's because all the developers have since migrated to MySQL.
Now I understand that Postgres supports views and stored procedures - both of which I'm not particularly impressed with. There are very easy work-arounds that you can do on the client side (which I do here at work), such as put all 'views' in functions, and just call the function to initialise the SQL string you want. Not very hard.
As for the relational stuff, InnoDB has supported that for ages and ages. Don't give us that non-relational argument crap no more.
Why do people use Postgres? I don't know. Maybe there are some who really really really need triggers. God knows why. As the MySQL developers point out (and they are quite correct) - this sort of thing should NOT happen on the server; it should be contained in the client software or middle tier. Views? See above. Don't need them. Stored procedures? Handy but honestly can be done just as easily at the client end.
Having used both, I can honestly say that I'd rather wait for MySQL to add the one thing I'm actually waiting for: stored procedures, than use Postgres. Postgres just gives me the shits. Maybe that's why MySQL is the No1 open source database.