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."

Comments

The 8 reasons not to use mysql

[mgkimsal2]

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

Re:Uh, oh. The pro mysql guy can't count.

[Mattintosh]

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...

Reasons not to use MySQL? These are stupid reasons

[Tairan]

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

Re:oooo, goody

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

A nice flame war. I'm just going to sit back, crack a beer and enjoy it. It is almost memorial day weekend, you know. Hopefully it get hot enough in here to roast a hot dog.

Oh goody! I'll help get things going:

• MySQL users will have to wait until you are done with the fire before they can roast their hot dogs, since MySQL is not a real database and does not support concurrent roasting;
  
• I've read the PostgreSQL manual eight times and still can't figure out something as bloody simple as roasting a hot dog, though I did figure out I have to call VACUUM before I can apply ketchup;
  
• Serious enterprises who care about their hot dogs use Oracle, since you can roast over 10,000 dogs at once and optionally impart the taste of filet mignon;
  
• If you try to roast a footlong hotdog using MySQL it will silently truncate it to regular size, causing your child to cry;
  
• Oracle will sue you if you complain about the difficulty of starting your fire or the blackened taste of the dogs;
  
• With SQLite your hot dogs are pre-roasted;
  
• Last year on Memorial Day, mysqld leapt out of my MacBook Pro and pushed my cousin into the fire, resulting in third degree burns. And also it causes cancer. And terrorism. Blindness. Violent puppy death. BOO! MYSQL IS SCARY DON'T USE MYSQL!!
  

Happy Memorial Day!

Re:How can the BSD be "too open"?

[DragonWriter]

And another gem FTA... "Whatever one might say about the strength of MySQL's backers, the fact that the company is not publicly traded means the financials are not required by law to be a matter of public record."

So we're going to have to trust the software company that won't show us their code, but will show us their books instead of the company that will show us the code, but not the books?!?

In business, this often makes some sense. The purchaser doesn't want to see and maintain the code, that's not their core competency. They want to be assured that, however, the vendor they get support from will be around to provide support in the future. So they are more concerned with the financials than the code.

Its just outsourcing in its original sense (before what used to be either "overseas outsourcing" or "offshoring" became the dominant definition): focus your company on its primary mission, and contract out for everything else.