MySQL Founder Starts Open Database Alliance, Plans Refactoring

Gary Pendergast writes "Monty Widenius, the 'father' of MySQL, has created the the Open Database Alliance, with the aim of becoming the industry hub for the MySQL open source database. He wants to unify all MySQL-related development and services, providing a potential solution to the fragmentation and uncertainty facing the communities, businesses and technical experts involved with MySQL, following the news of the Oracle acquisition of Sun." Related to this, an anonymous reader writes that "MySQL has announced a project to refactor MySQL to be a more Drizzle-like database." Update: 05/14 20:50 GMT by T : Original headline implied that this was a project of Sun, but (thanks to the open source nature of MySQL) it's actually Monty Widenius — no longer with Sun — leading this effort.

Comments

PostgreSQL

[Anonymous Coward]

Just bite the bullet and port to it. In the process, you may have to learn a bit about how databases are actually supposed to work, but that's probably good for you.

Re:PostgreSQL

[kris]

It is not that easy - Postgres right now is lacking in the area of replication and thus fails as a database for all those MySQL users that require replication for scaleout.

Postgres replication options usually are active-passive (WAL shipping solutions that recover the slave) or are trigger-based and syncronos such as Slony-I.

What MySQL users usually require is replication to be losely coupled and asynchronous in order for it to become a viable scaleout option.

Re:PostgreSQL

[|DeN|niS]

Slony-I is asynchronous. Read postgres' excellent documentation for some other possibilities.

You also get more flexibility; want to replicate your "current" tables but keep your "history" tables only on the master? Want to chain slaves to slaves instead of all slaves to one master? Want a special search database (you can have transactions and fulltext search at the same time) that only contains the ts_vector (fulltext search index) tables? Slony lets you do all of those.

Re:PostgreSQL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And Slony is also difficult to administer and easy to break.

Postgres is very much lacking a simple replication solution. If you're in the cloud, it's far more likely you're going to have many many smaller database spread across many machines. You need to be able to bring up groups of 3 (minimum) machines that cluster an entire database quickly and easily. You don't need all the flexibility of Slony, and you certainly don't need it's administration headaches.

I can't even imagine trying to administer 10's of databases with Slony, not to even think about 100's or more.

Re:PostgreSQL

[Slashdot Parent]

Slony-I is a dreadful hack that misuses triggers, and doesn't scale past a few nodes.

I'm sorry, but Slony-I is not a serious replication solution.

Refactoring Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do that when I write shitty code too.

Fo Shizzle

[0100010001010011]

Myizzle SQL be-izzle lizzleke Drizzle.

why?

[Lord Ender]

For apps that need basic SQL functionality and aren't particularly-high load, I use SQLite. For app that need advanced SQL or high load, I use Postgres. I can't imagine a scenario when I would chose to use MySQL (or MS SQL, for that matter).

Re:why?

[Reality Master 201]

Existing products - there's some software packages people like to use from the open source world that are tied to MySQL.

But yeah, if I had any choice, there'd be no instances in which I'd pick MySQL over SQLite or Postgres.

Re:why?

[Lord Ender]

WHY use MySQL? Gee, because it's well documented,

That's certainly a good thing, i'll give you that.

it plays nicely with Perl and PHP,

I just threw up. As my keyboard shorted in its vomit bath, it outputted a random string of characters and symbols, which just happen to execute without warnings when piped to perl.

Re:why?

[chickenandporn]

Many of us MySQL users see your Postgres question the same way: why use Postgres? There's 10 users of Postgres, and if I randomly toss both names into a room, I don't have to explain what MySQL is. Hell, half think I said "postfix" and leave the room.

What's MS SQL? OK, I'm kidding, but it makes me wonder if you've checked MySQL lately. I haven't had a reason to check Postgres, so I maybe just-as-satisfied with MySQL as you are with Postgres.

MySQL works for many of us. We don't want to switch to a different database in this tier of performance/cost. Plus, it's well-known outside of its fan-base, and is supported by a host of servers.

I'm not inviting a Postgres-vs-the-world fight here, I'm pragmatic, and the one that works and has better compatibility TODAY is MySQL. Maybe next year, that'll be Postgres among the circles I work in. Today, that tier is held by MySQL, smaller to SQLite, and larger to Oracle.

Re:why?

[johannesg]

Every fucking time there's a MySQL article, you Postgres trolls come out of the woodwork. Give it a fucking rest, already. We're talking about MySQL, not your beloved Postgres.

Fair enough. However...

WHY use MySQL? Gee, because it's well documented, ..., there's good documentation and websites, etc etc etc. You can't say the same for Postgres.

That's bullshit. The PostgreSQL is among the very best I've ever seen for any piece of software, open- or closed source. And I've seen _lots_ of it...

Re:why?

[DragonWriter]

WHY use MySQL? Gee, because it's well documented, it plays nicely with Perl and PHP, it's available on nearly every corporate hosting package, there's good documentation and websites, etc etc etc. You can't say the same for Postgres.

IME, you can pretty much say all of that for Postgres, Postgres "official" documentation and third-party "how-to" information, on the web, in dead trees, and otherwise, is as good, or better, than MySQL documentation (though the total volume is somewhat lower, the coverage and quality seems equally good or better), Postgres plays very nicely with scripting languages (though I've used it with Ruby far more than Perl or PHP); the only advantage I see to MySQL on the points you make is that there are somewhat fewer hosting packages that offer PostgreSQL.

Re:why?

[Lord Ender]

MySQL works for many of us.

I didn't ask if it worked. I asked in what scenario it would be a superior option (to the well-informed application architect, of course). The only real reason you gave is that you don't know much about Postgres. That means you're not really qualified to answer the question.

Does it scale better? Does it have better security? Is it easier to manage in some way? Is there a killer feature its two closest competitors lack? Those might be actual answers to the question. "I don't know much about it" is not an answer.

It's certainly commonly perceived that Postgres will scale better, and that it has a rather complete featureset. If this is indeed the case, I can't see a reason to select MySQL for a new project. Why limit yourself?

Re:why?

[TypoNAM]

This is one major reason why I refuse to use PostgreSQL: VACUUME for the fail.

Why the hell do we have to hand hold PostgreSQL to get it to clean up after its self? MySQL has no problem doing it on its own nor does any other databases that I know of require such an operation. Its also quite lame to run a dedicated daemon to monitor and tell PostgreSQL to clean up its mess. Another thing which was a past problem was the user permissions were just terribly implemented making it a complete joke to use for multi-user environments. Now it does appear that was resolved.

The reason why I really have such a huge problem with VACUUM is that there is just no way in hell that a user program could ever know a good time to issue the cleaning procedure, that should be the database's job, not the user program period because it won't ever know about all the transactions going on and so forth. Imagine if the Linux kernel required root to issue some commands to have the kernel clean up after cache handling messes every once in a while to ensure continuing operation of the operating system and then a couple years later the devs figured creating a dedicated daemon to automate the command issuing tasks would be sufficient... it just doesn't make sense.

Re:why?

[rho]

MySQL is well documented so that all the bugs are turned into features:

Mein Broder: So, in MySQL, when you exceed the maximum size of a TEXT column, does it throw an exception, or does it just truncate the data to fit?

Me: Well, it being MySQL, it will probably do something differently on Tuesdays than it does on the vernal equinox... but it probably will throw an exception and bitch about how you suck at data planning. Which is the proper thing to do, because who would want their database silently truncating data?

Mein Broder: In this case, I'd actually prefer it, 'cause otherwise I'd have to programmatically truncate it myself. These data aren't really that important, and truncating would be acceptable. It would be nice if I could be a lazy programmer.

Me: I think you're out of luck. But let's take a look:

MySQL Manual -- If you assign a value to a BLOB or TEXT column that exceeds the column type's maximum length, the value is truncated to fit.

Me: Astounding. Your desire to be a lazy, shiftless programmer has been facilitated by other lazy, shiftless programmers who have built the world's most rickety database management system.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should have followed your link:

"Fortunately, The Auto-Vacuum Daemon monitors table activity and performs VACUUMs when necessary. This eliminates the need for administrators to worry about disk space recovery in all but the most unusual cases."

Re:why?

[theshowmecanuck]

Is sounds like you are saying that because it gets a lot of press causing a lot of people to know the name, then it must be the best database server out there. And it is more compatible and works better because of that? WTF? What the hell do you mean by compatible by the way?

More people know or knew how to program in Visual Basic than in Java or C or C++. Does that mean it is a better programming language and more compatible? You are going to tell me that what I just wrote doesn't make sense. And you would be correct. But neither did your statement. I also used Visual Basic as an example on purpose. Being popular doesn't make it the best, and using the most popular tool doesn't make the best programmer and subsequently the best code.

Both databases have JDBC and ODBC drivers, meaning both can be accessed by business systems requiring an RDBMS. They both use SQL, granted both have variations in the SQL statements as do all RDMBSs (but this should be a non-issue for new development as the differences are not great).

There is one area I think will differ greatly, and that is in database/schema design. Most/many MySQL-Java shops I have seen have poor database designs, especially when the Java programmers rely too heavily on Hibernate to create the design, which is almost always. I think Hibernate is a good tool if used appropriately, but there are too many cases of people using ORM ONLY to create their database, and don't think about the database design any other way. This leads to very poor and inefficient database design. Even at my present company, a high tech start up where much of the server side code and databases where built this way. The databases are now dragging their MySQL asses now that the volume of data is increasing. Not necessarily because of it being MySQL, but because the use of ORM ONLY to create the database design. I'm not saying that this can't happen in a Postgres shop, but I normally see more deliberate database designing where Postgres is used. Perhaps because it isn't quite as light weight it may require better designers to use it, which leads to better database designs. Similar to how C and C++ require more highly trained and deliberate programmers than Java in order to produce good code.

Flame on!

Re:why?

[Eponymous Coward]

MySQL is better because I know how to use it and it works well enough. If I were to switch to Postgres, then I would have to spend time learning it.

My manager would rather me move some other feature forward rather than replace database A with database B.

When we hire somebody new, it is easier to find candidates who already know MySQL. That matters too.

-ec

Re:why?

[chickenandporn]

It's an interesting question then; the situations I see are the opposite: MySQL is the compatible solution already functioning, and a user would have to choose to change to Postgres.

Hey ("barely able to read"), thanks for being childish. It adds humour.

Re:why?

[Hognoxious]

What's the most negative number MySQL can store?

I'm asking because that's your score at reading comprehension.

Re:why?

[drinkypoo]

I just threw up. As my keyboard shorted in its vomit bath, it outputted a random string of characters and symbols, which just happen to execute without warnings when piped to perl.

Is the new slashcode out already?

Re:why?

[bmartin]

I can't imagine a scenario when I would chose to use MySQL (or MS SQL, for that matter).

I work for a Fortune 500 company. We use MySQL with J2EE and Hibernate in a production environment. Postgres would be our fall-back option if MySQL ever stopped doing the trick for us, but it scales well to thousands of users.

MySQL can easily be configured for use as a production-quality database. We also use Oracle and DB2 on an i5 for certain purposes, but our biggest app (in terms of company scope and $$) employs MySQL in the back-end.

That's why :-P

Re:why?

[DragonWriter]

Look-up a bunch of cheap hosting providers. How many have postgres?

Fewer than offer MySQL, but enough that if PostgreSQL is the right DB choice for technical reasons, this just means you don't choose one of the hosting providers that don't support PostgreSQL, not that you choose MySQL.

(Assuming, of course, that you are building a web app where a discount shared hosting service is the right choice to start with; of course, not all apps for which a DB is needed are web apps, and not all web apps are those for which a discount shared hosting service makes good sense.)

But, sure, if you are artificially constrained to choose from one of set of hosting providers, none of which offer PostgreSQL and some of which offer MySQL, that's certainly a reason to choose MySQL. But that sounds like a result of a bad planning process, not something that should ever occur in the implementation of a new application.

Re:why?

[shentino]

PostGres competing with MySQL is like alpha competing with Intel.

Even though IMO PG is technically superior in every way, MySQL is more widely supported, both directly and indirectly as a backend for many systems.

In fact, I am building a personal website and I want to add a message board. Guess which database backend every single one of them supports?

And until everyone else above me in the supply chain overcomes their collective inertia, my hands are tied because as of yet I do not have sufficient temporal resources (i.e. spare time) to implement a board myself.

Re:why?

[asdf7890]

For instance if you never delete from a table there's no need to bother trying to vacuum it.

Not quite. Because of the way postgres operates (MVCC) UPDATEs will result in space appearing in table structures too. With an MVCC based DB nothing is updated in-place (actually, in any good DB nothing is updated in-place, but with MVCC this is more obviously implied by any good description of how things work with multiple distinct transactions present). When a row is updated new version is added and the old version is removed when the transaction is complete and no other transactions might refer to the old copy. This has significant advantages for some use cases and loads, and some disadvantages in other

The wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiversion_concurrency_control) isn't a great description though there is a bit more relevant information in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_isolation.

I've not used postgres much in anger, so I'm no expert, but personally I thought that being able to manually schedule cleanup was a good idea performance wise.

Re:why?

[DiegoBravo]

> I asked in what scenario it would be a superior option (to the well-informed application architect, of course).

Of course because MySQL's root password comes empty so the Agile developers avoid losing their costly time waiting for the local database nerd configuring the permissions and bothering the team with more passwords to remember....

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it scale better? Actually it does, at least the 5.4 branch, when compared to postgres 8.3 branch (http://dimitrik.free.fr/db_STRESS_MySQL_540_and_others_Apr2009.html).

Does it have better security? Not really.

Is it easier to manage in some way? That depends on the usage scenario. Several tools developed outside mysql make the usual cases actually easy to manage.

Is there a killer feature its two closest competitors lack? Yep, plugable storage engines, documentation, mysql cluster.

Roundup:
Until recently, mysql didnt scale so well as postgres. That changed and imho wont change back for a while. Mysql's pluggable storage engines allow to fit the server towards many more use scenarios then postgres can ever dream of - there is no one size fits all solution. Cons to mysql are that its quirky, has long standing bugs and to most people the project's politics are a complete mess. Postgres definitely wins when it comes to features, its more customizable security model and in some cases its manageability and license. Nice things about postgres are serverside languages and point in time recovery. Postgres can easily get CPU bound, doesnt understand query caching.

Mysql was, is and will be the default database for most web-related stuff - postgres fanboys should get over it. Mysql has the sister project Drizzle which now servers mysql as a testbed for different approaches to solving problems. Mysql started to focus on solving longstanding bugs, improve performance and is in the painful process of opening up and involving community.

So, both databases have their usage scenario. Neither one will disappear. Ever. But my bet goes with mysql/drizzle in the long run (meaning that mysql will equal postgres plus stuff not in postgres).

Re:why?

[Cow Jones]

I asked in what scenario it would be a superior option

I'm with you on that - in the last 7 years, I've used PostgreSQL exclusively for projects that were under my control. I'm subscribed on the mailing lists, I know about all the misconceptions regarding performance, and I know that MySQL is nowhere near as reliable and professional as PG.

But since you asked: I'm still running MySQL on most of the servers, and the reason for that (the only reason) is third party support. When you're installing a web-based CMS, or bulletin board, or bug tracker, or gallery, or whatever, chances are it will work better with MySQL. The people who write these things are often more familiar with MySQL, and Postgres support (if available) is sketchy at best. Try Drupal with PG, for example. The core modules work fine, sure, but as soon as you start installing some of the more exotic modules you'll run into trouble.

I've given up trying to force these applications to play nice with Postgres. They can use MySQL if they have to, and I'll stick to a real database for data that matters.

CJ

Re:why?

[Splab]

People like you are undermining the industry. You straddle around claiming to be a database developer with x years under the belt, but you are in fact putting your clients data in grave danger and when shit finally hits the fan on your mysql installation you are going to wish you listened to the people who knew better.

Re:why?

[Crayon Kid]

Many of us MySQL users see your Postgres question the same way: why use Postgres?

Because MyISAM, which is what most MySQL users use, is not fucking ACID compliant.

Take a look at the potential problems. Take a look at recommended use cases: "Tables which contain read-only data, throw-away data, data which can be quickly re-generated." Are you bloody kidding me!?

I can't believe my eyes when I read questions (or posts) such as the above. Because it betrays your huge ignorance. Every man and his dog has heard of MySQL and is probably using it, true. But it's also true that most of them have no bloody idea of what ACID is or why it's desirable, or that MySQL with its MyISAM tables goes completely happy-go-lucky on the whole concept. These are the same people who probably don't bother using foreign keys, or have never even heard of transactions, or can't think why they'd need them.

Sure, MySQL offers InnoDB, which is supposed to rectify those issues. But how does it go about it, may I ask? Why, take a looksy. It's an entire bloody SECTION of the manual, which goes to great lengths to explain all kinds of issues and exceptions to the rules and whatnot. Summary: "It locks rows like this, except if it's a full moon then you have to blink your left eye every five seconds, and if you're doing a particular SELECT you need to stand on one leg, except on Fridays when it's the right leg."

Now compare with the Postgres manual page describing their ACID implementation. It's a couple of pages, keeping things clear and simple, so that anybody can understand them.

Not to forget that if you want InnoDB you give up full text search capabilities. And you ask why we should use Postgres? Really?

MySQL has lowered the bar for complexity of use. But in doing so it has facilitated DB access to a whole bunch of people who don't have any idea what they're doing, or don't really care about data integrity. It's fast and it works most of the time so it's alright, yes? Yes, granted, nobody will care much if your personal blog goes tits up because of MySQL. But I expect people will care if a database in which data actually counts for something has problems. And in such cases I expect people will want a real database.

Re:Yes, but....

[Ilgaz]

I don't get why they treat Oracle like AOL acquiring Netscape. It is a database development company which has no solution to fill MySQL'es place if I haven't mistaken.

I think after these incidents, large companies will think 1 billion times when they got the idea of acquiring an open source project. They treat Oracle like AOL for God's sake.

Who?

[fm6]

HEADLINE: MySQL Creates Open Database Alliance, Plans Refactoring

MySQL the database application? It created a new alliance? It plans to refactor itself? Astonishing, if true.

MySQL the software company? Uh, not, because Monty no longer has any connection with them.

You mean Monty did these things. Not "MySQL". His identification with MySQL is pretty strong, but I don't think they'll merge any time soon!

Re:YAY!!!!

[Ilgaz]

If they don't come up with a pure technical reason, a proof for forking the project rather than "big company hate" or conspiracy theories, they are already taking this decision politically.

If they think Oracle purchased Sun just to kill their project for 7.2 billion dollars in such state of Global economy, they are bordering megalomania.

Re:YAY!!!!

[idontgno]

See also Amiga Persecution Complex.

I'm confused

[Stone316]

I'll admit, I haven't followed MySQL that much but i'm confused as to the state its in now. With the original founders going off and doing related stuff it seems pretty fragmented.

Can someone piece it all together?

Re:I'm confused

[Splab]

No one can, you got several companies having their greased fingers involved, you got several different licensing systems for the same code base and the original developers all split into new forked projects.

MySql - TheirSql

[hey]

suggested name change.

Re:Yes, but....

[DragonWriter]

It is a database development company which has no solution to fill MySQL'es place if I haven't mistaken.

Oracle has a number of lighter DB products, including Oracle Express Edition (XE) which is free (as in beer). They don't have anything (that I know of) that does the same kind of multi-backend thing that MySQL does, but certainly they have a number of products whose market niches at least overlap with that of MySQL.

(Also, Oracle is a lot more than a database development company and has certainly been more aggressively pushing into other areas; I suspect that their acquisition of Sun was more focussed on the non-MySQL parts of Sun than on MySQL.)

MySQL AB ver. 2?

[Stan Vassilev]

It was during MySQL AB's time that MySQL began a stange play with the community by first dropping official community binary builds, and then severely delaying source code releases as well (while supplying commercial clients with more stable and up to date releases).

It was again during MySQL AB's time when the announcement came that MySQL's source code base will start to "close down", by releasing many new features only commercially, and with no open source code. When Sun bought MySQL AB, they reversed those policies and stood behind MySQL being open, without exceptions.

Now Mr. Monty Widenius has taken the money Sun paid for MySQL AB, and used it to open a new company and an "Open" alliance which is "designed to become the industry hub for the MySQL open source database, including MySQL and derivative code, binaries, training, support, and other".

If even Mr. Widenius has noble intentions regarding MySQL, his past in MySQL AB and his current interaction with Sun/Oracle seem to leave another impression.

Re:Yes, but....

[Doctor Faustus]

They don't have anything (that I know of) that does the same kind of multi-backend thing that MySQL does
Regular Oracle tables and index-organized tables have completely different physical implementations, and bitmap indexes have a completely different physical implementation from regular indexes. They're all ACID, though.

facebook uses it

[Toreo asesino]

...I saw in one presentation their chief architect did. They had no complaints about it; apparently it scales brilliantly as long as the db schema is very simple.

For heavy-weight databases though, I gather it's not so good.

what did Sun buy? lessons in OSS acquisitions

[cowdung]

A lesson in Open Source acquisitions:

1. Monty starts db called MySQL, trademarks and has copyright
2. Monty sells trademarks and copyrights to Sun (presumably for a ton of cash)
3. Monty leaves Sun
4. Monty forks MySQL calls it MariaDB

So in the end.

Sun has:
1. A trademark
2. Rights to the code
3. Right to sell MySQl under any license

Monty has:
1. GPL'd code he does not own
2. Credibility as the guy who knows about this
3. The ability to continue selling support services

So in OSS when you buy a product you don't really get too much do you? (At least if you can't hang onto the developers)

Re:what did Sun buy? lessons in OSS acquisitions

[zuperduperman]

> So in OSS when you buy a product you don't really get too much do you?

I think they got a lot from it: Monty is completely hamstrung because he doesn't own a line of the code in his new "Open" database. Unless he rewrites from scratch he is stuck with GPL even if he wants to give his code to his own wife. And that also means that no serious commercial company can use it because even the drivers are GPL (*not* LGPL) which means as soon as you touch it even to open a connection your own product turns to GPL (unless you buy a license from Oracle).

IMHO, the first thing that needs to happen (and which should have happened years ago) is that the MySQL GPL drivers need to be clean-room rewritten so at least you can link non-GPL code with it. Until then I've got no interest in it and it loses to PostgreSQL before I even get to thinking about a technical comparison (and please note: I've got nothing against GPL in general, I just don't want it forced inside my own processes by my database).

Re:Yes, but....

[DragonWriter]

OK but none of the products gets hit because MySQL exists right?

Since they have overlapping niches, probably some of Oracle's products, particularly at the low end, take a hit from MySQL. Since even their free low-end products are designed to be compatible with and provide an upgrade path to their pricier DB offerings while its probably as easy to go from MySQL to PostgreSQL-based EnterpriseDB, DB2, or MS SQL as from MySQL to Oracle, their certainly might be reasons why they'd rather, over the long term, either phase MySQL out or evolve it into something very different than it is now. They might not, too; its fairly popular, does have a commercial presence which (I assume) is profitable, and may bring enough to be worth keeping around even if it hurts sales of other Oracle products.

Monty Widenius

[StikyPad]

*Opens the envelope*

What do you call a game show host in a goatse pose?

Re:Yes, but....

[Dragonslicer]

I thought Oracle was a database? Is it different enough from MySQL to bother keeping both?

If you have to ask that question, just believe us when we answer "Yes."

Re:Yes, but....

[spauldo]

Freightliners and Vespas are both vehicles.

Oracle is what you use if you have hundreds of millions of dollars, a team of DBAs, and your need for data storage is such that downtime is measured in thousands of dollars lost per minute.

MySQL is what you use if you've got ten employees (one of which knows a bit of PHP) and sell motorcycle parts over the internet and you don't feel like an ebay store would quite meet your need.

They're both great products (I assume, I'm not a DBA and haven't messed with oracle). They're both RDBMS's. They both run on just about any modern platform. They're not used for the same stuff.

Re:Yes, but....

[vegiVamp]

Yeah. Oracle doesn't run all that well on the less-than-16-gig market.