MySQL Moves to Prime Time

MagLev writes "MySQL, especially version 5.0, is popping up on the radar screens of database gurus who built their reputations and book sales using other SQL databases. Ken North, who did those ODBC performance benchmarks for Oracle, Sybase, and DB2, wrote a recent article about MySQL 5.0. The article profiles mission critical database software and discusses how well MySQL 5.0 fits the profile. It gives good marks to MySQL, except for Java and XML integration."

Comments

Slowly But Surely

[oirtemed]

OSS can compete with commercial offerings, it just usually takes more time to mature. Now, I'd expect to see a burgeoning market for MySQL support companies or companies offering database services and supports based on customized OSS MySQL sources. I use MySQL for websites and such, it's a great little database but I had no idea how much it scaled: MySQL has a demonstrated capacity for managing very large databases. Mytrix, Inc. maintains an extensive collection of Internet statistics in a one terabyte (1 TB) data warehouse that contains 20 billion rows of data. Sabre Holdings runs the oldest and largest online travel reservation system. It replicates 10-60 gigabytes per day from its master database to a MySQL server farm. The MySQL databases are used to support a shopping application that can accommodate a million fare changes per day.

MySQL != SQL

[SharpFang]

One thing you must remember about, when considering MySQL. It's a relational database, all right, but it doesn't really support SQL.
It supports most of SQL syntax, so SQL gurus will find it easy to learn. Most of basic SQL stuff works. But more advanced constructs like nested queries are either unsupported or terribly unoptimal, and some SQL features are there just for compatiblity sake but shouldn't be used at all. Instead you should learn and use a bunch of MySQLisms that aren't found anywhere else and do the same thing, much better (faster, safer, bug-free). So if you have a database app and ponder what database to integrate it with, choosing MySQL means more than plain tweaks. It may mean deep hacks. MySQL is devilishly fast when it comes to simple queries. Few databases can beat it in this domain. But it comes with a cost, shortcuts taken prolonging/breaking many other tasks. So choosing MySQL is a dangerous choice - it's a lock-in.

We chose Postgresql

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I'm mostly just the digital plumber in my firm, but about a year and a half ago we were in a situation where it was time to migrate our production servers off of SQL Server 7 to "something else." The "something else" needed to be Linux friendly since we were phasing out M$ in our production environment in general. So we hired 2 former Oracle employees and expected them to tell us that Oracle was the answer. After about a month of nosing through our existing code, we were given a menu of options with their preference being postgresql. Mysql didn't make the cut because it lacked "important features" and wasn't "sql compliant", lacked "triggers", and something about "locking" which escapes me at the moment. I don't know a database from a hole in the ground, but that was our experience. We've been using Postgresql with RHEL 3 and RHEL 4 without incident. Very good for us...not so good for Mr. Ellison and Mr. Gates. Cheers,

innodb and fulltext?

[allanw]

Can you use transactions, and have referential integrity and fulltext indexing on the same table yet?

Liked it, but don't use it anymore

[nighty5]

I used to love MySQL back in the hayday, but then they changed their license model, thus it was "good night sweet prince".

Most other decent databases use something similar to LGPL for use of their libraries, thus there is no need to disclose your source code in an application that uses the database. This is rather a critical feature identified by almost all database vendors. Even Microsoft SQL has an LGPL-like license that doesnt mean you have to share your code.

Once MySQL was reaching critical mass, they decided to change the rules and restrict the license. PHP and others revolted and dumped MySQL for SQLite as the default database for PHP 5. Some could argue it was due to library mixup hell, with multiple versions of libraries on the system, but we all know the main reason was behind the license.

MySQL got a bit scared and made this silly license exception to the top 20 FOSS projects (don't quote me on that, recalled from memory) so they could be LPGL.

In the process I moved all my code to PostgreSQL and havent looked back.

From personal expereince...

[g_lightyear]

26 million rows = broken MySQL system.

It just doesn't cope. It's fine if you've got no data to speak of; it's great when the sizes of what it's working with is small.

IT TAKES 24 HOURS OF UNWRITABILITY TO MAKE A DAMN BACKUP, FOLKS.

MySQL was the biggest mistake I ever made. I had the option of choosing Postgres on an older version of the software, or MySQL on the latest, and I've been regretting it ever since.

The fact is this: I've used it for stuff when the amounts of data are small, and it's brilliant - but if you need to keep a lot of information, you're screwed - run, don't walk, to the nearest vendor and get something decent, because MySQL just can't cut it. It's missing too much in too many places.

Now, I haven't used 5. I'll have to, because 4 sucks, and 5 can't be worse - I can only hope that 5 gets rid of the worst of my problems; it will probably stay slow and unresponsive, and continue to take an hour to generate a report, but I can at least pray that perhaps, if I'm lucky, I can get a backup out of it without taking down the system.

No matter how good you think it is; no matter how fast you think it might be... don't pretend it scales up to the kinds of loads the commercial vendors can handle. There's a reason the big boys cost big money, and despite popular opinion, it's not all just leeching money out of your pocket. MySQL doesn't do big well.

Re:propaganda

[mattcasters]

Sure, how about comparing MySQL to other free & open-source databases.
PostgreSQL, Firebird, MaxDB and Ingres all handle the milions of rows *a lot* better.
Especially PostgreSQL seems to stay on par with Oracle, even offering (primitive) support for table partitioning, bitmap indexes etc.

If I would try to do data warehousing on an open source database, it's probably going to be PostgreSQL.