Slashdot Mirror
MySQL to Counter Oracle's Purchase of InnoDB
Miff writes "Computerworld is reporting that MySQL is hoping to counter Oracle's acquisition of InnoDB by providing its customers with an alternative." From the article: "Axmark said the storage engine is 'pluggable,' meaning other storage engines can be substituted instead. He said the code for InnoDB is under the GPL (General Public License), so 'the code is always out there. It will always be out there.'"
Actually, neither one of them implicates relational theory properly. Aside from the InnoDB engine, most of MySQL is pathetically incomplete. Without InnoDB, MySQL is worthless with regard to referential integrity, which is a showstopper for any database that requires multiple tables related to each other.
If the company building the Trans-Relational database ever gets off the ground (or failing that, goes open source), perhaps both of them (along with Sybase, SQL Server, Informix, and the OOP DBMSs) will be put out to pasture. The claimed capabilities of that system, implementing a very relationally complete system, would bury even Oracle eventually, if not immediately.
Anybody have any real background info on why the company developing the Transrelational system is having legal and/or financial trouble? Nothing concrete appears to be available on the DbDebunk site or via Google. The whole thing appears to have been hanging fire for a long time.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The problem is that if you are developing a database with multiple tables related to each other (MySQL DOES want to be considered a "relational" database rather than a mere "file handler"), then you have to have referential integrity (or waste time coding referential integrity yourself - I used to do that with FoxPro back in the day, and it's not fun.)
Most of the MySQL engines don't do referential integrity - which makes them worthless for most "real" database efforts. Only InnoDB enforces foreign key constraints.
If the current version of InnoDB in MySQL 5.x is under GPL, and MySQL AB can continue to develop their own fork, it may not be that big a problem. But if they can't, due to patent or other IP issues, MySQL is in big trouble. In fact, for any serious uses, they're history, and everybody would be advised to turn to PostgreSQL or Firebird - or even Ingres.
Firebird in particular is fast and small and would suit the sort of Web applications that MySQL is known for - except that there isn't much support in Firebird for that sort of thing - but it could be added on if people see the need due to MySQL becoming a liability.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
It's a bit simpler - Oracle is for anyone who knows what data integrity is and requires it, MySQL is for anyone else. PostgreSQL is the free, acceptable alternative to Oracle.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
MySQL and Oracle compete like public transportation and the automotive industry[1]. They're different concepts used in very different ways, so they are not direct competitors like Ford and Chevy. However, one is still an alternative to the other, so they are indirect competitors.
In some ways indirect competition is more destructive because it's a positive feedback system. The auto industry takes off in the U.S., so we build lots of infrastructure that make cars more desirable, which means more cars are purchased. However, if one person purchases a Ford that doesn't reduce the desirability of a Chevy to someone else.
That extends to databases easily. For the sake of argument, let's say MySQL users tend to put more code in the applications, and less logic in the database than Oracle users. Then their application no longer has much need for Oracle, reducing the desirability of Oracle, leading to (perhaps) another application built upon the same database system.
[1] I am making a very loose analogy. If you're trying to figure out which database I'm calling public transportation, and why, you've already put more thought into this than I have.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
When many people started using MySQL over other choices, the landscape was quite different.
* PostgreSQL wasn't available in a native version on Windows and their developers were still mastering the codebase they inherited (they mastered it around 7.3, before that they tiptoed around making massive changes).
* Firebird wasn't open sourced yet (before summer 2000).
* and SQLite wasn't released either (before summer 2000).
The above 3 conditions are no longer valid.
Many of us use MySQL because so many other software packages are already designed to work with it. Like Windows, it doesn't matter even if better alternatives exist because this one reason alone is most compelling if the software is "good enough".
In other words, the original technical reasons for choosing MySQL over others has been replaced by a compelling new reason: the same reason many people use Microsoft Windows today.
In a nutshell:
* If I want a super fastest lookup table without SQL, I'll use something like cdb or tinycdb.
* If I want a fast and simple database requiring only a tiny subset of SQL, I'll use something like SQLite.
* If I want a modern, full-featured, and free rdbms/ordbms, then I'll use PostgreSQL.
* If I want compatibility with most 3rd-party software, then I'll use MySQL.
Actually, neither one of them implicates relational theory properly. Aside from the InnoDB engine, most of MySQL is pathetically incomplete. Without InnoDB, MySQL is worthless with regard to referential integrity, which is a showstopper for any database that requires multiple tables related to each other.
As the companies using this pathetic database have noticed, 99.9999% works just fine; especially when your application is aware that you don't have a foreign key constraint and yes, the data may be munged 1 time in 1 billion and need to be cleaned.