Oracle Releases MySQL 5.5

darthcamaro writes "Two years after Sun released MySQL 5.1, Oracle has picked up the ball with the official release of MySQL 5.5. New features include semi-synchronous replication, InnoDB by default and new SIGNAL/RESIGNAL support for exception handling. Above all, Oracle stressed that they are committed to further MySQL open source development and that they see it as a complementary technology to their proprietary Oracle database."

Comments

You have nothing to fear.

[tautog]

You can trust us. Honest.

Re:You have nothing to fear.

[davecb]

MySQL is a way to take market share away from MS Sql, and Access. It will be valuable to Oracle until MS dies.

--dave

Re:You have nothing to fear.

[tepples]

MySQL is a way to take market share away from MS Sql, and Access.

Microsoft Access is more than just Jet or MSDE; it is also a scriptable GUI framework for accessing databases. What is the direct counterpart of Access that uses MySQL?

Re:You have nothing to fear.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't think Oracle views Postgres as threat in any definition of the term, they could hamper OS db field very easily, actually:

1. Over two or three years, Oracle can merge mysql into their Express edition. That'll basically require adding a mysql API onto it. They can probably do that over a few weeks, but why hurry?

When most users can download a compatible binary from Oracle, who'll care about the genuine "mysql", really? Especially given that mysql technologies are controlled by the same Oracle.

2. Over the same period, they can gradually kill the mysql trademark in favor of OracleSomething. Puff, mysql is gone.

3. You'll end up with a product that is mysql compatible, has Oracle features, and is usable "for free". By virtue of being an Oracle, it will compete well against Pg as well. Unlike Pg, it will also provide smooth migration path towards the slaughterhouse with all bells and whistles.

That may move some less ideological Pg users away, hurting Pg's acceptance and development long term.

So, the db landscape is left without mysql, and weakened Pg.

Not a compleat "kill", but close.

Re:You have nothing to fear.

[jimicus]

What is the direct counterpart of Access that uses MySQL?

You've had a number of replies so far. AFAICT, most have missed the point so thoroughly that they can't possibly have seen Access used in a business. So I'm going to explain Access.

Yes, Access gives you a database engine (and not a particularly good one at that). The other thing it gives you is a GUI-driven desktop application which makes it an absolute doddle to design tables, queries, forms and reports without having to write a single line of code.

The end result is frequently badly designed, with little or no attention paid to normalisation or data integrity, but it broadly works.

Now, you might very well turn around and say "Tough. You'll just have to get used to writing code." - you're talking to the wrong people. The people who are using Access in businesses are the middle managers who have never in their life written code and aren't about to start now. So many businesses pushed Access to the desktop years ago when they bought Office, and have since discovered that the reason the IT department hasn't heard from lots of parts of the business is because some manager decided that rather than to-and-fro with the IT department (which would cost a lot of money out of his budget - larger businesses just love shuffling money between departments), he'd cobble together a little application in Access to run his department. It's invariably a mess, but it's a mess that's so ingrained it isn't going anywhere.

Anyhow, these guys have no idea what SQL is and are only vaguely aware that a database stores everything in tables. You can no more ask them to do everything in PHP from now on than you can ask them to lick their own testicles.

Re:You have nothing to fear.

[BigDogCH]

This is exactly correct! It seems like every 3rd department has some access database that they use.....IT doesn't find out about it until someone broke it or deleted it. In the end, we ends up supporting it. Here is how it works.

1. A single user creats a simple access database for their own use.
2. That user shares this with their most trusted sidekick.
3. The sidekick takes over when the original user dies from intestinal parasites.
4. The entire department now uses this tool, and is fully reliant on it.
5. Requests now come into IT from other departments asking for access to the tool.
6. IT says "oh man, this sucks".

Re:You have nothing to fear.

[GooberToo]

Delusional much?

While I don't think Oracle views Postgres as threat in any definition of the term, they could hamper OS db field very easily, actually:

Wrong. Oracle is on record as stating PostgreSQL is one of their largest open source threats. PostgreSQL is one of the few open source competitors which offers comparable features, tunability, and can actually beat them in performance even up to the high end. Scalability is something PostgreSQL and Oracle share. Oracle still trumps them on the ultra high end and warehousing, but even that's eroding because of companies like EnterpriseDB (hint, its PostgreSQL).

When most users can download a compatible binary from Oracle, who'll care about the genuine "mysql", really? Especially given that mysql technologies are controlled by the same Oracle.

People don't care about MySQL. They care that its brain dead easy to start using and is pretty fast, especially for light loads, with hardly any tuning. Its basically the antithesis of Oracle. So suggesting that a binary compatible polar opposite of MySQL will magically grab mind share is stupidity at best.

3. You'll end up with a product that is mysql compatible, has Oracle features, and is usable "for free". By virtue of being an Oracle, it will compete well against Pg as well. Unlike Pg, it will also provide smooth migration path towards the slaughterhouse with all bells and whistles.

So you end up with a product that nobody wants and still can't compete with PostgreSQL.

MySQL fills a niche which Oracle doesn't otherwise provide a solution. Slapping a binary compatibility layer on top of a product which doesn't begin to address the niche, doesn't address the niche. Anything else is simply delusion and fueling an exodus to PostgreSQL.

Re:You have nothing to fear.

[bored]

rather than to-and-fro with the IT department

I've been around long enough to see this. You really have to ask what is wrong with the IT departments. If a middle manager who doesn't know anything about programming can use a tool to solve his problem in a fairly short period of time, why can't the IT department do it quicker with better maintainability using a similar tool. Personally I believe its the same mindset that results in the IT department spending two weeks fscking around with Samba patches and config files to solve some obscure problem, when a crappy windows server doesn't have the problem. Its a serious case of "we know better, this is how it should be done" and an unwillingness to admit that maybe instead of building the golden gate bridge all we need is a couple of cinder blocks in the middle of the creek. This totally applies to access, I rarely meet someone who's job is IT/Programming who would stoop to using access to solve a problem. Instead its got to be done using Java (which still doesn't have a decent RAD environment), or PHP or any one of a number of other languages which can be used to build fairly large complex systems, but fail miserably when tasked with creating a functional UI to manipulate a couple database tables, in a hour or two. It still amazes me how hard it is in many languages to just display a table to the user complete with column sorting and searching, and similar functionality to what can be achieved with Access (VB, Delphi, etc) in a manner of minutes, often without any actual programming.

Fifteen years ago I had a job where I spent 50% of my time doing C++ for back-end processing, and 50% of my time in Access creating a UI to access/update data being handled by the back-end system. It taught me a very important lesson about picking the right tool for the job. Years later I'm still working on spit systems, only now its a PHP/Javascript/HTML front-end and C++ backend, and every day I think, this was easier 10 years ago. Back then, C++ was the heavyweight language with a lot of code to get anything done. Now the situation has reversed, and the C++ code is small and lean (100k or so), while the UI is approaching 3x that. Plus writing it with a web UI has actually made the job of concurrent access to the system harder for my particular circumstance, because the management aspect is far more complex than just selecting a couple of values and submitting a form.

Re:You have nothing to fear.

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness, most users do this because of the severe burden IT lays on them to get anything done. Suppose they want to build a simple db to hold vendors, addresses, and contacts... if they go to their IT dept to build it, it becomes expensive, it gets added to the bottom of an 18-month-long project list, and any future change to the table or addition of a new user becomes a hair-pulling bureaucratic nightmare.

Not in every case, of course... but there's a middle ground where departments can build small apps in cooperation with IT, rather than the binary choices of "completely independent of" or "at the mercy of" IT.

From the article....

[Pharmboy]

From the article: There were concerns about how the open source database would fare under Oracle's leadership, but those concerns are now being put to rest by Oracle with the release of MySQL 5.5

Um, no, not all concerns are put to rest. This was a pretty fluffy piece of journalism, just quotes and feel good words. I'm glad that MySQL has moved up a notch, but I'm still looking really hard at PostgreSQL as a possibility in the long run.

Re:From the article....

[tomhudson]

that's because it isn't needed, the equivalent operations can be done in any SQL compliant database (or for that matter in ISAM and VSAM systems too)

you're wanting to use a less robust dbms because of your laziness.

Don't be silly. Sure, there are other ways to do it, but why should I when it "just works" and is easy to explain to others?

I don't need 100% sql compliance. I need something that does certain things well. Sorry, but postgresql lags in that area.

You can try to turn this into another vi vs emacs war, but I'm just not interested. I'll continue to use the right too for the job, based on the features *I* need, not some ideological nonsense.

-- Barbie

The thing is, Oracle still owns it.

[Nefarious Wheel]

The thing is, Oracle still owns it. Or at least as much as Sun owned it. GPL to the contrary nonwithstanding, who (among the open source community) is going to want to update MySQL, now that it's in Oracle's hands?

The popular euphemism for that arrangement is "A mature technology".

Well, maybe it is. But Oracle's product acquisition is like product punctuation, full stop.

Re:The thing is, Oracle still owns it.

[h4rr4r]

I would suggest planning ahead, based on their track record it sure seems like you might one day need to go some place else.

Why not Firebird?

[spynode]

Nobody seems to mention Firebird which is supposedly on hell of a RDBMS. I wonder why it is so unpopular while it offers so much.

Re:Possible to emulate via temporary tables

[nxtw]

Yes, Oracle has done some stupid things. If you have forgotten, so had Sun. It's amazing how selective our memories have become - Sun is now seen as a candidate for canonization. Sheesh!

The comment you replied to criticized MySQL purely on technical grounds, not because they were owned by Oracle... Indeed, the technical complaints made against MySQL mostly do not apply to Oracle DB.

Re:Its a trap

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Its GPL. You can't link to one of its libraries and satisfy the GPL without releasing your source code. If you do release your code under the GPL,then you may charge what ever fee you would like without Oracle's interference.

Now, if you don't link against it any other GPL'd code and just provide a standard way of connecting to a database like ODBC and have the configuration as part of the program's setup, you're in the clear.