Slashdot Mirror
8 Reasons Not To Use MySQL (And 5 To Adopt It)
Esther Schindler writes "Database decisions are never easy, even — or maybe especially — when one choice is extremely popular. To highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the open-source MySQL DBMS, CIO.com asked two open-source experts to enumerate the reasons to choose MySQL and to pick something else. Tina Gasperson takes the 5 reasons to use MySQL side, and Brent Toderash discusses 8 reasons not to. Note that this isn't an 'open source vs proprietary databases' comparison; it's about MySQL's suitability in enterprise situations."
Oh, boo-hoo, dual-license bad!
The rest of the article is equally stupid. For example, "If you already own proprietary licenses ..." has NOTHING to do with whether Mysql is a good fit or not. Next it will be "I hae Pepsi in the fridge; I really want a glass of free cold water or a bottle of Coke right now, but I'll buy some more Pepsi instead seeing as I've already standardized on it".
NOW
Seriously, the articles do nothing more than point out the *best places* MySQL may or may not work, not that it is better than anything.
One size yet again does not fit all.
Hmmm..where's my Model204 manuals...?
1. MySQL Uses the GPL
2. MySQL Doesn't Use the GPL
3. Integration With an Existing Environment
4. Product Maturity
5. Feature Set Maturity
6. Availability of Certification
7. Corporate Considerations
8. Perception of Scalability
They all have *some* merit, but all are very dependent on your situation. 1 and 2 seem to cancel each other out, as in if #1 is an issue for you, #2 probably wouldn't be. #3 is sort of weak, arguing that if you already have many other databases, adding yet another different system is detrimental. That's not an argument against MySQL, but against disparate systems altogether. The rest of the issues are matters of degree. "While MySQL does have a certification training program, its training availability is not nearly as widespread as for, say, Oracle or MS-SQL Server." True, but if you're comfortable with the level of quality of certified MySQL people, then go forward. It'll contribute to the general upward spiral of adoption, hiring, certification and so on. MySQL is going to keep growing, it's just a matter of how quickly and in what directions.
P.S. Printable version here -> http://www.cio.com/article/print/113111
creation science book
close(rantPage);
System.out.println("Nothing here to see. Please, move along...");
The pro-MySQL "guy" can't pee standing up, either. "He" is a she.
The anti-MySQL guy is Canadian, though, so he probably doesn't pee standing up either. Lots of beer -> floor -> bladder evacuation. I kid, I kid...
Someone need's to slap this author with large trout. There are many reasons NOT to use MySQL, of which this article touches on only one. For example:
--Innodb scaling across multiple processors (MySQL bug ID 15815, still not completely fixed)
--Limit of 1024 current transactions ( MySQL bug 26590)
--Terrible performace when running MySQL Cluster
--Single threaded mysqldump exporting and importing (recently fixed in 5.1)
--Single threaded replication (making many changes? Don't count on it if you're running replication)
--Poor handling of subselects
--ineffecient ORDER by and GROUP BY
--Poor quality filesort algortythm (want to see your $20,000 dollar database server die?)
--better performance in 4.1.x
Let's also mention that 5.1 has been out in beta for years now. When is it ever going to ship? MySQL now is proclaiming fixes in 5.2, and 5.1 isn't even on the board to ship yet.
With all that, and more, I'm surprised this author could only come up with "it isn't made by Oracle" and "product mateurity."
*disclosure -- yes, I play with MySQL databases all day long in large high use production environments. MySQL is great for small systems, but there -are- some problems when running on large enterprise grade systems. It'll get there
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
No, that's part of the "8,573 reasons to not use PHP" article.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Oh goody! I'll help get things going:
Happy Memorial Day!
The audience for both articles are for IT (upper)mangers. Most of your argument above would be better off for the technical lead whose doing the report for his immediate manager (maybe technical) who'll then give a report to the CIO or even to a manger below him that would say:
MySQL (GOOD)
Oracle (GOOD but expensive)
Excel (BAD)
Not that those managers inherently stupid (hope not), it's just that their more concerned with the bigger picture and the resultant budget.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Just junk food for thought...
Just keepin' it real. Gotta love the internet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you are in any position where you are choosing between databases, you have three cases:
Sorry about the M.P. reference there :o)
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I recently started looking into databases, and I asked a bunch of friends. All the experienced ones gave roughly the same advice: If you don't have time to read directions, just throw something together with MySQL. It'll be okay. PostgreSQL would be better.
So I took the extra ten minutes, and I'm pretty happy.
Every large site I know of that uses MySQL has had scaling problems of one sort or another under load, usually to do with trying to handle multiple writes to the database. At least a few people have simply swapped in PostgreSQL and seen problems disappear instantly. One friend did performance testing, where what he found was that MySQL was faster for small sets of clients, but that it slowed down faster, and that for largish N, he couldn't get it complete the test on the available hardware, but PostgreSQL just ran.
Having set up both a few times now, and having debugged problems with both, there is simply no way I'd use MySQL given any choice at all. It runs, but it feels accreted rather than designed. I know, Cathedral and Bazaar and all that... But there are times when you really do want the feeling that someone considered something up front.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
> Not all database types are fit for all purposes. Relational databases for instance are bad for data mining/warehousing
> due to poor query performance but good for data entry due to high transactional performance
Your information is incorrect:
1. relational databases have been used for warehousing and reporting (data marts) for 15 years - and are used for more than any other solution for this purpose. Ok, sure you've got a lot of OLAP out there, but there's probably almost as much Relational OLAP (ROLAP) via Microstrategy, etc as there is true OLAP.
2. Take db2 for example, it:
- support three different forms of range partitioning (union-all views, multi-dimensional clustering, and range partitioning)
- supports hash-partitioning of the data across many servers - think "beowulf cluster"
- given the two above you can spread your data across 100 4-way servers, each with fibre access to a heavily-cashed SAN.
- Now when you issue a query db2 will spin up all 100 servers - each hitting its own local piece of the data (not 100 copies of the whole data, but each server with 1% of the whole).
- Because it also supports range partitioning each server is probably only going to scan 10% of the total data in a typical query.
- Because it support query parallelism it'll split each query on each node into four separate pieces (getting near-linear performance speedups) - now you've got 400 cpus working.
- Because its optimizer is about the best one on the market - it isn't going to auger itself into the ground on your 100 line sql query.
- That should allow you to crunch down a billion rows to your 24 row output in couple of seconds at most.
- Of course, it's also smart enough to rewrite your query to automatically hit any summary table that could speed the query up. So, it may only have to scan 2400 rows - and may return the results in 0.001 seconds.
3. The point is that warehousing, reporting and analytics work very well in a relational environment. But you need to pick your products well. If you want to handle terabytes of data you can put it in MySQL, SQLite, MS Access, Foxpro, etc - if you really had to. But, life will be *far* easier if you put it into a product that can handle the volumes much better.
Not sure what you mean by "faster". In my post, when I say fast, I mean the humble act of selecting data, which is 90% of the queries in I'd bet most traditional web applications. I care less about insert, updates, and deletes because those just don't happen as much.
Oracle run by a good DBA is fast fast fast. I don't have benchmarks for you. But I have personally migrated an application from MSSQL 2000 to Oracle 9i. I have more experience with MSSQL than I do Oracle (and so you could rightly infer that at first, my coding practice was optimized toward MSSQL which is in many cases the opposite of how you code for Oracle), and yet my application runs much, much faster on Oracle. I chalk it up, in part, to the efficiency of the indexing. The b-tree indexes in Oracle are just awesome. And now that I actually understand how to really tune a query in Oracle like I do in MSSQL, I have to say that Oracle provides better tools to enable you to tune. The explain plan alone, when you really understand it, is hands down better than, say set statistics io on and set statistics time on in MSSQL. And that's not even getting into TKPROF.
Maybe your real world experience says the opposite of what I just said, but in the corporate environment (like at work) I wouldn't even think of using anything other than Oracle, not out of prejudice, but based on years of experience. I'd like to try MSSQL 2005, though. Always willing to give them another shot.
But I have also used Oracle DBs admined at let's just say, a less-than-competent level, and it's quite horrid. Oracle has to be done well, and paying a real DBA is costly. Enter MySQL.
blah blah blah
Interestingly, despite the fact that I almost never recommend MySQL, I do agree that the 8 arguments opposed were not that wel thought out.
My comment to the article was:
First, I do not recommend MySQL frequently and I figured I would explain why. Although I have no formal training in database design I consider myself more educated in these matters than the average developer.
The basic issue is that, until recently, MySQL has avoided being a classical RDBMS. Instead, it has been developed as a quick and dirty data storage system with an SQL interface. While this is great for some kinds of applications (light-weight web content systems), it breaks down quickly when you need to have many different applications (some commerical, some inhouse) running against the same database. Even MySQL 5 does not get away from this concern entirely (even though the features now exist, enforcing them by the RDBMS is still problematic).
Basically-- if you want a rapid development storage device with an SQL interface for a single application, there is no reason not to use MySQL (aside from the standard Gotchas). If, however, you want to have a more intelligent database which mathematically represents your data as well as possible, and displays these properly to many different client apps, it is still not adequate. Note that the former case has a nasty habit of evolving into the latter case.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I only use the most recent version of MySQL, and I have the exact opposite perspective. MySQL does what a database is suppose to do really well - simple relational queries onto data. MySQL's transactional processing; the ability to set a savepoint and then commit or rollback, seems flawless to me.
Oracle on the other case, seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what a database is supposed to do - it's encouraging you to push more and more of the application layer into the database (first plsql, and now Java at the database layer?).
I just want to create tables, select, insert or update data. Not much else. That's what Codd truly intended. Codd would roll over in his grave if he saw the bloated mess that Oracle is today. And you can design a horrible denormalized schema in Oracle just as much as MySQL - neither force any form of normalization at the RBDMS level. (Some applications merit denormalization)
Not to even mention the absolute shameful way Oracle considers, manages and patches security issues.
MySQL is a simple, free relational cruncher. I can't believe a true finance architect considers Oracle more robust that MySQL, especially when its comes to security.
Horns are really just a broken halo.