Slashdot Mirror
Drizzle Hits General Availability
snydeq writes "MySQL fork Drizzle has been released for general availability, giving companies a viable alternative to Oracle-owned MySQL, InfoWorld reports. 'Organizations that have been seeking a less-expensive alternative to Oracle's brand of MySQL — or a variant devoid of feature bloat — now have an option that Drizzle's creators deem ready to package in Linux distributions.'"
Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Please name open source projects better. "Hey boss, lets build all these sites on top of Drizzle."
Maybe some high profile OSS guys can help fund or start some kind of OSS naming service.
Less expensive? I thought MySql was free? Any MySql admins here? Are there certain features (grid, flashback, partitioning) that aren't available with the free version?
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Does the Drizzle know that they have named a MySQL fork after him?
If you want a real open source database, with a real commitment to not being evil, check out PostGres. I've preferred it over MySql for a really long time, for technical as well as political reasons.
MySql might have had better marketing, but for most purposes it was never the best open source database.
I am officially gone from
I'm just glad they didn't give it some dumb, stilted name like "LibreSQL".
Proverbs 21:19
It "shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark."
Was that one of Wilde's? Very witty . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Generally I would support open source projects, but it's time to move on from MySQL. The project took wrong direction many years ago. If you go with Oracle, go with the old enterprise database solutions. If you don't exactly care about the license, go with Microsoft Access. They both are way better than MySQL and dealing with its problems.
What on earth are you talking about?
MySQL, Oracle, and Microsoft Access all target completely different markets. Access and MySQL are not even the same kind of software.
Advice: on VPS providers
It is these kinds of behaviors that have always kept me from ever liking MySQL. I really don't want my database trying to decide how to convert my data into something it deems acceptable. If I try to insert bad data, I want an error, not the db 'fixing' the issue for me.
Sleep: A completely inadequate substitution for Caffeine.
If you want a real open source database, with a real commitment to not being evil, check out PostGres. I've preferred it over MySql for a really long time, for technical as well as political reasons.
MySql might have had better marketing, but for most purposes it was never the best open source database.
Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?
Specifically - what's the clustering support like? Can you do hotbackup without LVM hacks? etc. I'd love to use Postgres, but need confidence that it's not got a massive deficiency somewhere.
I seem to remember that many years ago, before Sun bought MySQL AB, the license for the library needed to access the database from your own programs was GPL (not LGPL), and MySQL AB claimed you couldn't use it without open-sourcing your code, unless you paid them for a commercial-use license. Has that changed with Drizzle (i.e., have they written a new API so they can choose a different license)? Their license page says:
Drizzle is licensed under both the GPLv2 and BSD license. The core of Drizzle was forked from MySQL and thus is under GPLv2. Derived work from GPLv2 code will stay GPLv2, as the license states...
which doesn't give any detail about which parts are still GPL and which parts are now BSD.
Oh, that's cute - you thought that they did it on purpose, trying to help the user.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Please dear merciful God, don't ever use the words Microsoft Access and Database in the same sentence!!!
The terms are mutually exclusive...
Geez...I wish Access had never been created, and wish it would be banned.
The messes I've had to clean up due to it and its misuse.....*sigh*
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'd use Access but I'm still trying to figure out Frontpage.
Hahah. I know, eh? Imagine if Slashdot was running on MySQL instead of Access. Oh wait..
how is babby formed?
Too bad "OurSQL" is taken.. Maybe "EveryoneSQL"
Fo' drizzle.
There are many ways to do postgres clustering, what exactly do you want to achieve. Do you want to just spread out queries or do you want to do failover?
You can do hotbackups by running pg_dump while using the db, but you probably would be better served by just replicating to another machine.
We use Postgres for our main product and it seems to be ok at keeping food on my plate.
Access? Why?
Never pick Access as a multi-user db. At least pick SQL Sever Express if you insist on MS.
A large part of the Internet Technology sector thinks your company is poison. I know, I know... you don't care unless they are shareholders dumping their shares en mass.
Can we centralize the "alternatives to MySQL" thread here? My vote's for Firebird.
That's some awesome trolling, that is.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Here's just an interesting comparison between them all, but you can see Postgres supports basically everything MySQL does and then a whole lot more..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems
Not sure how up to date that is though
Slashdot seems to be working ok. For a website MySql is an ok choice so long as you can live with its shortcomings.
If slashdot was on Access only one of us could use it at a time. Access is not a real db. Access competes with sqllite, not with anything anyone should be using for a production website.
As someone who has dealt with both, I can say the reason postgresql isn't as popular is because its more involved in its setup. Mysql is simpler for new people. You install it, download phpmyadmin, login as root and then start creating databases and stuff. postgresql isn't as simple. Creating a new database is a bit more involved and when i first was confronted with it, I wondered why it was so complex.
I don't even know how to take advantage of more complex stuff in postgresql either.
This is coming from someone who is mildly experinced with mysql and set up a postgresql server not knowing anything.
Its like taking a Ubuntu person and sticking them on slackware/gentoo or something. Although its similar its still radically different.
O.o
+1
Take a look at Postgres...it is MUCH more like Oracle in terms of a robust RDBMS. I've heard of projects taking pretty large Oracle installs...and converting over to Postgres with minimal pain.
The main reason MySQL is more popular is that it was smaller and easier to configure...but at the cost of robustness, and initially...data integrity. It was a short cut...much like {gag} MS Access proved often to be.
Postgres takes a bit more planning, and know how to install and use, but then again...so does something like Oracle.
You could probably compare:
MySql == Access
Postgres == Oracle
If you want to make some analogies.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So now there will be Linux Apache Drizzle Php servers? Just classy.
Wasn't MariaDB enough?
My favourite problem was not being able to use variables for the LIMIT clause Bug #11918. Took 5 years to remedy.
Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?
In my experience (since the last quarter of the 1990s), PostgreSQL never really trailed MySQL because there was anything wrong with it, it just fell in an awkward spot along the database spectrum. On one end of the spectrum (well, Berkeley DB was at the extreme end, just above flat files, but MySQL was next in line) MySQL fit the needs of the majority of data-driven webapps at the time.
A lot of web developers didn't need a proper database and often didn't recognize when they did need one, and couldn't design a decent schema in any case. MySQL was a good match for this skillset - it was easy for someone to set up and instance, throw together some tables and start coding. Any deficiencies were often just handled by throwing the logic into the code. MySQL was also pretty darned fast, which was important due to the hardware limitations of the time, and it could scale well enough for most needs. That got it a toehold and mindshare. Over the years as the demands of the web grew, Monty and friends made sure it stayed in that sweet spot. On the other end of the spectrum, if you *really* needed a proper database or massive scalability, you were usually doing something enterprise-ish, and that usually meant there was enough money available to pay for Oracle (or MS-SQL) and a Solaris machine. You had DBAs trained to manage the beast and design proper databases. Somewhere in between was PostgreSQL. Not as fast as MySQL (being ACID compliant was harder work), more difficult to setup, more demanding of hardware, not quite as powerful as Oracle, few people were trained to use it. Being free (of charge) didn't matter, because there was generally more to lose if things went wrong than the cost of the database, so Oracle was a safer bet. So, though it was more than good enough, PostgreSQL just didn't end up being as popular as MySQL. Didn't really matter, IMHO, because PostgreSQL did just fine and found a niche of it's own where it is doing quite well. Popularity isn't everything.
Take a look at Postgres...it is MUCH more like Oracle in terms of a robust RDBMS. I've heard of projects taking pretty large Oracle installs...and converting over to Postgres with minimal pain.
The main reason MySQL is more popular is that it was smaller and easier to configure...but at the cost of robustness, and initially...data integrity. It was a short cut...much like {gag} MS Access proved often to be.
Postgres takes a bit more planning, and know how to install and use, but then again...so does something like Oracle.
You could probably compare:
MySql == Access
Postgres == Oracle
If you want to make some analogies.
Thank you for your replies.
I wrote the original comment - apologies, but I forgot to login (I don't login here often, I tend to lurk)
The reason I ask is because i've been suspicious of MySQL because of the dual licensing, and also because the (expensive) cluster version needs the indices to be in memory - which requires serious hardware for our setup as our data is 'long and thin'. However there is little experience of postgres here, so we spend the money.
Therefore i've never bothered with postgres, which is stupid, but I know that as many open source projects use mysql, it is the 'go to' database of choice. When speccing a database i've always asked around and people have pointed out the deficiencies of postgres as being the clustering and backup support.
To be specific - how does the clustering (any method) of postgres compare to standard mysql? What is the best way of doing hot backups? Where does the performance fall down?
I'd love to use postgres, but unfortunately i'm too busy doing other tasks to give it a good, proper test. Has anybody been through this already and do they mind sharing?
Ta,
Sean
Out of interest, what's the problem with master/slave under postgres?
You mean they actually fixed it?
I would not rate MSAccess as being a competitor to SQLite. It's not nearly as good. (Well, it wasn't around a decade ago...but at the time it was getting worse with each iteration.) It's sole advantage, if it is an advantage, is that it comes bundled with a programming environment. Unfortunately, they were in the habit of breaking things with every minor release. Or sometimes just because. (My general practice in debugging was to save a text copy of the program, and if I started to get compilation errors, to delete the current programs, and then re-import the text files. It usually worked. For a month or so.) Frequently the problems seemed intentional, though of course one could never prove that. And even if one could have proven malice, the EULA meant they would be held harmless.
For some reason I totally stopped ever allowing any MS software on any computer that I use. (Well, except a few fonts.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A "drizzle" is a half-assed rain. Is Drizzle a database for those aren't really sure they want one?
There is only one Drizzle- http://video.adultswim.com/aqua-teen-hunger-force/who-is-the-drizzle.html
I for one do not even try to explain to average people what open source software is, I cant get one sentence in before someone starts cracking jokes
Drizzle ... really? you want this to be the year of the * desktop? fine make it so I dont have to spend time explaining what lame drizzle is and how it is different from a gimp gnome!
LAME
GIMP
GNOME
etc
These days, I think MySQL has the same problem. It's squeezed between SQLite and PostgreSQL. If you're doing complex queries, PostgreSQL is faster. If you care about your data, both have better ACID support. If you're doing simple queries without many concurrent updates, SQLite is faster. There aren't many niches left where MySQL is worth considering.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's mainly historical.
Postgres used to be much harder to install and maintain, making it unpopular with causal people that just wanted a DB to run their website.\
Postgres also used to have much weaker clustering support, making it unpopular with people looking for a complete system
i can*t belive it .... i dont understand :(
What a waste of /. commenting. I look through the top 50 and the obsession with the fucking name is amazing. How about the fact they don't support stored procedures or triggers.
Fundamentally, stored procedures usually are not the correct architectural decision for applications that need to scale.
WTF? Stored Procs are the basis for enterprise development with a DB backend. It is the whole point of scalability. Hard coding commands is horrible for anything but small apps. I am also not a fan of Oracle, but until a better alternative is presented I will stick with MySql because it is free, and can scale much better then these guys. Sorry Drizzle, its too muddy for my tastes.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
This coming from a poster who actually recommended using MS Access with a straight face.
... but jizzle was already taken.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
MySql == Access
Ironically, even Access has full ACID transactions.
(yes, I know it's not quite what you meant)
Access most certainly is a database - it organizes data for consistency and efficient operations. It's a single-user DB, and it's designed for relatively small (hundreds of megabytes at most) amounts - and yes, it is unfortunately abused way beyond its design constraints; but it is a database.
In fact, it's even a relational one. It has strict schema and actually enforces it (unlike MySQL ISAM, which thinks that "FOREIGN KEY" is some kind of fancy comment). It has proper transactions with isolation levels. It's not particularly ANSI SQL conformant, but then few RDBMSes are (Access is just worse than most).
Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?
Fo' shizzle!
Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?
People will tell you a lot of things and some of them might actually be factors. The real reasons are pretty simple; marketing, platform preference, and user ignorance. Obviously there are other factors, but these are first and foremost.
Back when MySQL was just beginning to get any attention, a lot of people were actively looking at PostgreSQL. The problem is, PostgreSQL supported Win32 poorly. In fact, the Win32 port at the time, was actually a unsupported Cygwin port which came with lots of caveats and baggage. Caveats and baggage is not something people want in a database. Needless to say, lots of developers didn't want their platform dictated by their choice of database. This was an instant win for MySQL despite the fact that at the time, MySQL was a tonka toy compared to PostgreSQL.
Next was marketing. MySQL lied, lied, lied, and lied some more. If you look, you can find lots of MySQL's old white papers which are purposely full of misinformation and lies. They purposely lied about benchmarks, created benchmarks which tailored to MySQL's strengths (which rarely had anything to do with the real world), so on and so. Given the choice between a database which MySQL consistently said was dramatically slower, and worse, didn't really support Win32, the choice seemed pretty clear. MySQL actually made references to PostgreSQL versions which were not even supported at the time. Typically they would benchmark again one or two *major* versions back of PostgreSQL, so they could have a performance edge. I can still remember reading a benchmark in which they compared MySQL to a version of PostgreSQL which hadn't even been supported for half a decade. The rule of thumb back then was, if MySQL said anything about performance, features, or reliability, it was lie. Ya, it literally was that bad. Unfortunately, most MySQL users didn't know any better.
Last was the simple fact that most MySQL developers at the time, and even largely true to this day, have absolutely no clue what's important in a database. Most of these people had no clue what scalability meant (MySQL traditionally scales poorly but is extremely fast for single user - which is what most developer's test and therefore come to a very wrong conclusion). Worse, MySQL developers would constantly argue that no one really needed referential integrity, triggers, stored procedures, sub-selects, ACID is completely optional, nor is a query optimizer of any real significance. I kid you not, that really is much of the defense MySQL had at the time.
Again, there absolutely are other facts, but the three above greatly empowered, if not accelerated, MySQL's acceptance to the detriment of PostgreSQL. Of course, it didn't help that MySQL had convinced everyone that MySQL was lightening fast and extremely scalable and yet third parties typically found MySQL to be one of the least scalable databases (usually landing middle to dead last of the pack) and frequently couldn't even finish basic benchmarks. And its important to remember, these benchmarks ultimately punished most other databases because they were written to use the least common denominator (for the sole purpose of allowing MySQL to be benchmarked), which ruled out much faster features like stored procedures, triggers, and referential integrity. Which really means, if someone wants to take advantage of common database features, MySQL was horribly slow and far, far less scalable for real world applications.
Obviously things have changed since then. MySQL has come a long way. Its now capable of consistently completing benchmarks and has a number of more advanced features. Regardless, for scalability, performance, and a wide selection of rich features, MySQL is still largely playing catch-up to PostgreSQL. Which is why PostgreSQL is still pushed in front of MySQ
Master and slaves db setup is much better
Has never been true. Though IIRC, MySQL does support multi-master which PostgreSQL does not.
and easier with MySQL.
Used to be true but is no longer the case.
That's why Postgres isn't ready for entreprise databases.
And yet its commonly used in the enterprise side by side with Oracle. PostgreSQL commonly competes with Oracle. Hell, in many cases, it actually replaces Oracle.
If you're small to medium size business you basically have to use MySQL
Only if you have absolutely no clue what the hell you're talking about.
Postgres is nice, but it's for hobbyist mostly.
Reallying laying on the troll thick...
It just doesn't scale.
Except for the common cases where it performs better than MySQL and Oracle.
Desperate for attention much?
Slashdot seems to be working ok
You do realize Slashdot has fairly frequently unplanned outages? I've also had maybe a little more than a half dozen messages lots by Slashdot over the years, and I'm just one user. How many thousands or tens of thousands of posts have been lost over the years?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if its a web site or not. The real question is, is your data important to you? If the answer is yes, MySQL should fall to the bottom of your list of choices.
Access competes with sqllite
I keep reading people saying that but Access is actually far, far richer than sqlite. For single user systems, while I loath to admit it, Access is likely a superior solution. sqlite really competes against the likes of bdb. Which really, many people passover but is a surprisingly good database for what it is; but what it isn't is SQL.
giving companies a viable alternative to Oracle-owned MySQL
How about a real alternative, like PostgreSQL?
This coming from a poster who actually recommended using MS Access with a straight face.
Says the person who might as well have written "there is no open source spreadsheet anywhere near as good as Microsoft Escel" in his sig...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Fo' drizzle"
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
MySql == Access
Ooh, that's just bitchy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
>I'm using MariaDB for a 6TB production system and it works flawlessly.
Good to hear that, one heard rumors of MySQL eating data years back, though you can't be sure if that was due to operator error, but the old MySQL attitude of "who needs atomicity" probably didn't help.
Would you care to share any pointers? I'm sure you're using a 64-bit OS. RHEL or Ubuntu/Debian?
And what about replication? For high availability/scaling or backups? Does mysqldump give you a consistent dump? (I.e, if the dump takes 15 min, and within that time a row was dropped from table A, and later associated rows from table B, the backup will contain either both the A row+friends, or neither.)
Single master/multiple master?
Datatype for primary keys?
Does it croak on ALTER TABLE?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Slashdot seems to be working ok
You do realize Slashdot has fairly frequently unplanned outages? I've also had maybe a little more than a half dozen messages lots by Slashdot over the years, and I'm just one user. How many thousands or tens of thousands of posts have been lost over the years?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if its a web site or not. The real question is, is your data important to you? If the answer is yes, MySQL should fall to the bottom of your list of choices.
Uhh. When exactly have these fairly frequent unplanned outages happened? I don't remember having seen slashdot have any outages except when they were updating the database because the comment table index hit the upper limit. There wasn't even an outage when it got hacked (not cracked, the guy told the developers how he did it) and I had been lurking slashdot for years before I created this account. My UID would be near yours if not lower GooberToo, had I created an account when I started lurking.
how is babby formed?
They've experienced several just in the last week or so. They are fairly common regardless what you may think.
Still nothing compared to the problems they would have running a website on Access. Postgresql should of course be what they switch to.
Looks like your signature worked.
Actually, if that's what you read, that says more about you than me.
I really miss ExpressCalc...