×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

David Axmark Resigns From Sun

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the take-this-job-and-shove-it dept.

Databases 229

An anonymous reader writes "From Kay Arno's blog we see that David Axmark, MySQL's Co-Founder, has resigned. This comes on top of the maybe, maybe not, resignation of Monty. We saw earlier this year that Brian Aker, the Director of Architecture, has forked the server to create a web-focused database from MySQL called Drizzle. The MySQL server has been 'RC' now for a year with hundreds of bugs still listed as being active in the 5.1 version. What is going on with MySQL?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

229 comments

That's the power of the open source license. (5, Interesting)

aqui (472334) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307315)

It allows for disagreements to be resolved by disagreeing, even when there are corporations with lots of lawyers involved.

You can still fork it. No easy corporate lock down is possible.

Re:That's the power of the open source license. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307641)

Development is only as good as the developers.

If the majority of the developers make their living from a single corporation, and when that corporation doesn't allow them to do further development on the project, it's going to take a big hit.

To be sure, open source makes the process harder since others may still be willing to maintain the "still open sourced fork", but when a project comes to a certain size and complexity it will be really hard to replace the lost developers...

Re:That's the power of the open source license. (5, Insightful)

vandan (151516) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308241)

Theoretically, yes you can fork the code. But there are broader issues than the legal ability to fork.

This has put a huge question-mark over MySQL's long-term viability. For a fork to be viable, you need a critical mass of developers. But we've seen 2 key ( founding ) developers leave, and Oracle buy InnoDB.

If Sun bought MySQL to further the project, then where is the evidence that this is happening?

If Oracle bought InnoDB to further the project, then where is the evidence that this is happening?

Of course you could argue that neither company is obliged to do anything. But alternatively you could argue that both companies have behaved in an explicitly anti-competitive way. This is itself is of course no surprise to anyone other than the US justice department.

Re:That's the power of the open source license. (3, Informative)

Calinous (985536) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308913)

Does Sun have a competitive database? I ask because I don't know of any

Re:Does Sun have a competitive database? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25309057)

Yeah, it's called Oracle. I seriously suspect they just bought MySQL to kill it.

Re:Does Sun have a competitive database? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25309137)

Sun does not own the Oracle database - Oracle owns the Oracle database. Wow.

- T

Re:That's the power of the open source license. (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309355)

I guess it's the natural progression of things. Products die, OSS projects die. If there's a gap; a need for software that doesn't exist and is very important to the community, it will be created or an old project will be resurrected.

There is money in OSS. A lot of the big or important OSS projects have been able to bring in a good deal of money (I mean, look at mySQL, those guys made a small fortune from it) so I have no doubt that if mySQL dies out and there's no equivalent alternative (but there is already) we'll see a project come alive.

Re:That's the power of the open source license. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25309635)

You could also argue that their internal cultures do not mesh well with the open source culture, and that is why you see projects brought in only to stagnate, or why they open source different projects only to see very little significant input from the broader community.

It ain't MY SQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307321)

Take responsibility for it Sun.

Don't forget... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307327)

...that Obama is a member of the GNAA!

Re:Don't forget... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307607)

Looks like the republican attack team is at it again, reminding people that Barack Obama is Black. But the jokes on you: He's not gay or American!

Re:Don't forget... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308887)

Born in Hawaii before it was a state... Not American.

MySQL sucks (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307331)

MySQL sucks

Re:MySQL sucks (1, Informative)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307369)

Let me say this about that....

I have used MySQL for nearly 7 years now. I currently maintain about 30 databases across many servers and operating systems from MS to Linux. Databases as small as 200k to one as large as 900MB....I have never had a single issue with any of them in all that time, ever.

Re:MySQL sucks (2, Informative)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307435)

ooh, 900MB. Positively ginormous, that.

Re:MySQL sucks (4, Insightful)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307955)

Yeah, I had to snigger at that. The project I'm responsible for has a database that's gotten up to tens of gigabytes in size. MySQL was chosen before I came along, and knowing what I know now, I'd definitely consider alternatives, but for the most part, it serves our purposes.

Re:MySQL sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308383)

Yeah, I had to snigger at that. The project I'm responsible for has a database that's gotten up to tens of gigabytes in size.

Yes, but you still only have a 2" penis according to your sister.

Re:MySQL sucks (4, Informative)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308089)

there's no need to start dicksizing about the type of databases you manage. no one is claiming that MySQL is the best database management system out there, or that it can handle any kind of application. but for a certain range of applications it's a very capable and well designed database server.

not everyone needs a multi-terabyte database. and the utility of a RDBMS is not defined by database sizes it can handle. MySQL is so popular precisely because most sub-enterprise businesses don't need anything as robust as Oracle. so MySQL is therefore a much more cost-effective solution.

Re:MySQL sucks (5, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309015)

"and the utility of a RDBMS is not defined by database sizes it can handle"

Actually there is some relevance.

If you needed a database gigabytes in size a few _years_ ago, MySQL would have been a really bad choice (it still is crap, just less so IMO).

For MyISAM:
You would have to configure it to get tables bigger than the default 4GB limit (there's a number of row limit and table size limit). Hope you don't make the new setting too small so you're still working in the place when those run out too ;).

For Innodb:
Before the single file per table, if you're moving about gigabytes of stuff, you end up with one huge multigigabyte innodb table.

For both:
Adding an index was the same as "alter table" and involved making a copy of the table.

So let's say you have a 40GB table and 40GB of space free. No index add for you :).
Keep in mind if you have plenty of space free making a copy of a 40GB table does take time.

BTW concurrent inserts to an innodb table with an auto increment field were slow till only recently (well allegedly they've fixed that).

Re:MySQL sucks (2, Funny)

raju1kabir (251972) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308817)

I know! And he's ridiculous on the other end of the scale too. 200KB? Gimme a break. I've worked with microdatabases as small as 5 bits.

Re:MySQL sucks (2, Funny)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309027)

It's not a microdatabase unless it's stored in microbits. Anything that takes up a whole bit or more is way too big.

Sombody finally FINISHED a program! (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307447)

I have used MySQL for nearly 7 years now. ... 30 databases ... many servers and operating systems from MS to Linux. ... as small as 200k to one as large as 900MB.....I have never had a single issue with any of them in all that time, ever.

Sounds like somebody got a program working right and, instead of tweaking it some more and breaking it again, quit.

After decades of information technology it's ABOUT TIME that happened.

WAYTAGO!

Re:Sombody finally FINISHED a program! (0, Offtopic)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307671)

Oh, God, your sig makes my head hurt. Which George Bush? Carter and Bush I were both good presidents.

Re:Sombody finally FINISHED a program! (2, Insightful)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307983)

Sounds like somebody got a program working right and, instead of tweaking it some more and breaking it again, quit.

Yeah, because requirements never change.

Re:Sombody finally FINISHED a program! (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308073)

Sounds like somebody got a program working right and, instead of tweaking it some more and breaking it again, quit.

Yeah, because requirements never change.

Sometimes they don't. B-)

Re:Sombody finally FINISHED a program! (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308189)

Yeah, because requirements never change.

Sometimes they don't. B-)

You're right. Sometimes they just get cancelled. :-)

Granted I know nothing..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308473)

About databases but couldn't you build some saleability into it so that you could be reasonably certain that it could easily carry you forward for many years? Shouldn't all new IT solutions be forward thinking enough to avoid obsolescence whenever possible?

Re:MySQL sucks (3, Insightful)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307493)

Really? How about the "bad connection" issue where the database server due to no reason obvious to the developer will count to ten and then just refuse new connections? How about when MySQL trips over itself and locks it's own tempfile? How about the admin gui that pretends to let you change parameters but really doesn't? How about MySQLs abmyssal speed once it has to deal with larger tables? How about introducing new keywords that are common words like 'release' and thus making a DB upgrade much more painfull then it needs to be? Overall I like MySQL, grew up with it even, but there is no use in pretending like there aren't any problems ...

Re:MySQL sucks (1)

runningduck (810975) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308319)

I am perplexed by MySQL. I installed it on a server 9 months ago for a new project I was tinkering with. Paying jobs kept me from doing much more than getting MySQL up and running. Last month I noticed my server was straining under a heavy load. I figured I had finally pushed the server beyond its limits doing multi-site hosting with Apache and Postgres, multi-site mail serving with Postfix and Courier POP/IMAP [backended into Postgres], running video security software, and being a general collect all project server. It wasn't a big deal being there are no critical customer services running so I wasn't too concerned even when SSH was non-responsive. When I got console access I was shocked to find MySQL, which had no databases and no connections [blocked via iptables], was consuming tons of memory and cpu. Arrgh! I killed MySQL, the server recovered and everything else it humming without a problem.

My only explination is that MySQL is like a petrol engine in that it will seize up if run too long without a proper load. :)

Re:MySQL sucks (2, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309253)

I've definitely seen mysql use up tons of memory before for no apparent reason. Trouble is it did this at a customer's site on a live machine with lots of users.

My ex-boss insisted on MySQL - whereas me and my colleague were pushing for postgresql instead. Oh well...

Postgresql has its fair share of problems, but looking at the Postgresql and MySQL mailing lists and bug reports, I'm more comfortable with the Postgresql problems.

Stuff like this scares me:

"ORDER BY DESC in InnoDB not working"

http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=31001 [mysql.com]

So it might actually be a good thing if MySQL fades away.

(which reminds me of the error message when it crashes every once in a while: MySQL has gone away :) )

Re:MySQL sucks (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309545)

Postgresql is a nice database, however in this day and age, a database must support clustering in some way or other, unless they get working on at least a replicating service they wont take off.

Re:MySQL sucks (4, Informative)

siDDis (961791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309733)

Youre joking right? PostgreSQL supports several replication engines which works fantastic great and it has been doing that for years!

You have:
PGCluster
Slony-I
DBBalancer
pgpool
PostgreSQL table comparator
SkyTools
Sequoia

You can read about what Skype use replication for PostgreSQL here:
https://developer.skype.com/SkypeGarage/DbProjects/SkypePostgresqlWhitepaper [skype.com]

And Slony for example is developed by Jan Weick, a PostgreSQL core team member.

Re:MySQL sucks (5, Interesting)

theantix (466036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309149)

"How about the "bad connection" issue where the database server due to no reason obvious to the developer will count to ten and then just refuse new connections? How about when MySQL trips over itself and locks it's own tempfile? How about the admin gui that pretends to let you change parameters but really doesn't?"

I've developed, debugged, administered, and administered MySQL databases for nearly a decade now, and I have never seen any of those issues you complain about.

"How about MySQLs abmyssal speed once it has to deal with larger tables?"

The InnoDB storage engine uses clustered indexes and is actually pretty good with large tables. Combine that with the partitioned table support in MySQL 5.1 and large tables are quite manageable. I have one OLTP application with well over 300M rows, and the server runs fine even though it is on commodity hardware.

"but there is no use in pretending like there aren't any problems ..."

Indeed, but they weren't what you mentioned here. I am looking for better CPU utilization on multicore systems, semi-synchronous replication, parallelized replication, better foreign key performance, and better join algorithms. Many of these features are planned of course but I want them now.

Re:MySQL sucks (1)

Kev Vance (833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307799)

I have! MyISAM tables get corrupted by normal MythTV use on x86_64, which causes mysqld to crash. Pretty annoying to live with, until you realize you can change the engine to InnoDB and it seems to work.

This is documented on the ubuntu wiki [ubuntu.com], but affects gentoo as well.

Re:MySQL sucks (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307919)

That's the problem with MyISAM. It's only useful if you're not worried about losing data. Any breakage, whether it's a server crash, running out of disk space or the wrong phase of the moon will totally lunch your DB. InnoDB on the other hand is storage engine actually meant for real projects. That said, MySQL definitely has its limitations, but within them it's pretty good.

Re:MySQL sucks (3, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309303)

The problem with MySQL is the "brochure" looks very nice to the PHBs.

But when you get to the details, a lot of the advantages/features are mutually exclusive.

Want fast simple selects - MyISAM
Want fast single user inserts - MyISAM
Want fast concurrent inserts - InnoDB
Want fast concurrent inserts to tables with an "autoincrement" column - better look at this http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-auto-increment-handling.html [mysql.com]

Re:MySQL sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308393)

Basically, you're saying all your databases fit in RAM. Anything would get good performance out of such small DBs, unless you go out of your way to write ridiculously bad queries.

Re:MySQL sucks (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308919)

I have used MySQL for over 12 years now. I have maintained databases as small as 100mb and as large as 400gb.

I have had numerous issues with MySQL and its poor reliability, lack of standard SQL features, and buggy, incorrect, or dangerous implementation of standard SQL features causing silent data corruption.

Although I can say the more recent versions of MySQL are much better. MySQL 3.x was the worst, with periodic crashes major database corruption, and appallingly bad query execution.

Historically, MySQL has been unstable, with periodic crashes, and very long rebuild times to repair damaged ISAM tables.

I have used postgreSQL over the years also, and not encountered any problems with that.

I want a database engine that combines PostgreSQL's best strengths with SAP DB and MySQL's best strengths, and contains none of their worst weaknesses.

Re:MySQL sucks (2, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309523)

Then you my friend, are only using MySQL as an advanced file pointer.

Simple things like firing triggers during cascading events, ensuring the client gets the engine he requested are features MySQL does not have.

MySQL is a nice toy database, but until they change from best effort to ensuring our data, it should never be used for anything critical.

"What is going on with MySQL?" (0, Offtopic)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307333)

Not much from the sound of things.

Ah well. I run Postgres.

Re:"What is going on with MySQL?" (1)

inKubus (199753) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307625)

I'm switching to PGSQL also. I knew when Sun bought them it was the beginning of the end. The community is just not there any more. I would like to see MySql survive, but they are so far behind when it comes to SP programming and such. Postgres was designed to be programmed, whereas MySql was designed to be small and fast for little websites. I have multiple Mysql boxes with 5GB+ innodb tables and while it works, it does not make me comfortable..... I have a few pgsql out there but there's a lot of migration that's needed first.

Re:"What is going on with MySQL?" (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308199)

Does that mean your server now runs a LAPP stack? (someone please insert a Hooters joke)

Re:"What is going on with MySQL?" (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307985)

looks to me like sun are trying to make mysql good for buisnes (bug fix it and add features that sound good to buisness) which doesn't get anybody laid so nobody really wants to work on it anymore.

One good turn deserves another. (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307353)

Well, one good turn (PSARC 2002/013 (FastTrack, sun4m EOL, closed approved automatic 1/4/02)) deserves another (jumping ship from MySQL).

Re:One good turn deserves another. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308781)

Does anyone here know what your ranting bout?

How long... (2, Interesting)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307383)

How long until Netcraft confirms that Sun is dieing?

Re:How long... (1)

jvillain (546827) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307751)

You don't need Netcraft to tell you that. Just pull up google financial, yahoo financial or any other and plug in java as the symbol. You don't loose >80% of your companies value year after year and survive. At the rate their share price has been dropping for the last 2 years their share price will be zero in less than 3 months. That won't actually happen as they should be bought up very soon. The only question is by who? Oracle, HP, IBM or one of the hardware giants they rebrand and resell? My money is on HP who will then get rid of Solaris as they all ready have HP-UX.

Re:How long... (4, Insightful)

hdparm (575302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308187)

At least Schwartz got properly 'punished' for the company's poor performance - he received only $11.1 mil. pay package for 2008.

It's really tough being CEO today.

Re:How long... (4, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308469)

That won't actually happen as they should be bought up very soon. The only question is by who? Oracle, HP, IBM or one of the hardware giants they rebrand and resell?

The way things have been going the last few weeks, my bet is on the United States Treasury Department.

Re:How long... (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309469)

The way things have been going the last few weeks, my bet is on the United States Treasury Department.

So you're a speculator then? Because the long term money is in tribbles.

Nice guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307391)

David Axmark spoke at our LUG a few years ago. We've had a bunch of folks speak there and he was certainly one of the most likable. That alone is not enough to impress a jaded LUG membership, so he was also extremely sharp technically.

No other reason for this post except that it's good to hear that he did well for himself.

Huh ... (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307405)

David Axmark Resigns From Sun

So, he gets the ax because somebody missed the mark.

Re:Huh ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307865)

Gotta love that trademark Slashdot cheez :)

Re:Huh ... (5, Funny)

OldManAndTheC++ (723450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308625)

So, he gets the ax because somebody missed the mark.

Never fear, this is a minor setback for him. I hear he's already writing a book about what he will do in the next act of his career.

Title: "My Sequel"

Do you suppose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307517)

that the rest of the guys on the MySQL project will abandon ship and just start up a new MySQL project (OurSQL or somesuch) on the codebase?

Drizzle? (5, Interesting)

Joe U (443617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307559)

Has anyone here used Drizzle?

I'm about to start a new web project and I get to choose the DB. I'm concerned over the lack of stored procedures though. My last big project used SP's for everything and honestly, while initial coding was a pain, in the long run it was a huge benifit.

I need a lean and mean webDB, so, if not Drizzle, does anyone have other recommendations?

Re:Drizzle? (0)

nicolaiplum (169077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307907)

Don't use stored procedures. They concentrate computation in the database server which is harder to scale than the application servers. Use simple queries to suck appropriate amounts of data out of the database and process them in an app somewhere else.

Re:Drizzle? (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308105)

That advice is only appropriate in the expected query results are small, on large tables using stored procedures can significantly reduce the load on the DB by not requiring it to handle open connections while a large amount of data is streamed to the remote client.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308973)

It is also appropriate if you do not want a vendor bending you over every year for a support contract all because
you put all the logic in the database and cannot easily port it.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309433)

That's a load of crap.

No matter what DB you chose you are going to be tied in whether you use SP's or "dynamic" SQL.

If you go for SP's you have the benefit of only having to port the database - not the programs, the reason? Calling stored procedures are on most databases the same so you could in theory just port the database and the application layer would be none the wiser.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308293)

Don't use stored procedures. They concentrate computation in the database server which is harder to scale than the application servers. Use simple queries to suck appropriate amounts of data out of the database and process them in an app somewhere else.

You obviously have very little experience in database application design.

Re:Drizzle? (4, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308481)

Don't use stored procedures. They concentrate ...

You obviously have very little experience ...

Horses for courses, mate. There are good arguments in either direction. Personally I tend to avoid stored procedures not for performance reasons but for pragmatic ones. For one, it's easier sometimes to get a change approved in an application than it is to talk someone into approving a change -- any change -- in the database schema, no matter how trivial, and for another it's easier to migrate or replicate a database to another platform's database (say, Oracle to DB2 for example) when you're only worried about transferring tables and views, not logic. And it is true that the simpler it is, the easier it is to scale. Databases tend to scale by lock-managed clustering, applications by horizontal means (sometimes simply adding another apps server). One tends to be easier than the other.

Sucking data out in bulk can be a good idea too, for safety reasons -- I've seen bank OLTP databases frozen because someone thought it would be safer to set a read-only lock on a report scan, not realising they were using the wrong consistency setting across the entire database & thus forcing the rest of the users (thousands of them) to operate off the DB's log file, then killing the job mid-way after a few hours only to discover he had to face a few hours rollback....

Like I say, horses for courses...

Re:Drizzle? (4, Informative)

Samah (729132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308727)

Don't use stored procedures.

That's a very narrow-minded statement. The application I maintain has an Oracle 10g backend, Pro*C middleware, and a Java fat client. The standard process for an action in the application is to ask the middleware to run a certain stored procedure in an Oracle package.

Given that this application is huge (I'm talking 1000+ tables, some with up to a million rows) and there are at least 1000 concurrent users, it's very convenient to have the logic on the server-side. Any code change to the client requires an outage (to replace the jar file), which is BAD if it's an emergency fix. By putting all the logic (and access to a vast amount of data) server-side, it reduces network traffic, allows easy rollbacks, and allows the support team to apply a fix without an outage.

Some more great things about our setup is that Oracle packages and triggers support networking. We have a publish/subscribe system tied to triggers such that when one user makes a change, it's instantly reflected on every other user's screen.

Obviously this solution isn't best for all situations, but it fits our needs very well. YMMV

Re:Drizzle? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309043)

Stored procs do have their place, but now say for instance your company needs to reduce some costs this year. You know
shrinking economy and such, so oracle comes a knocking for their annual or is that anal bend over the IT budget and ram it home support contract costs. Or perhaps your customers are not really very passionate about having to drop a million for a single database instance to run your software. Yes, now you are in between a very big rock and a hard place, all the logic is now
embedded in a proprietary database requiring a rewrite of the entire system to support a cheaper alternative. My personal feeling is to try to keep code out of the database unless I really, really need to resort to a stored proc.....Oh hell what am I flapping my gums about I would never use a proprietary database in the first place.

Re:Drizzle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25309157)

Why would a stored procedure port be harder compared to a ad-hoc query port?

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309493)

So instead of changing a database, putting in the same SP's your suggestion is to have 100's of coders changing all the dynamic SQL?

Also using dynamic SQL means any programmer within the organization can do whatever the f*** he wants, and trust me, most people have no idea what they are doing with databases.

Give me SP's any time.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309047)

Your definition of huge is funny, I have tables that are growing a million rows a month and that's for a small S&P 500 company. I have a friend who does joins on multiple tables with 300+M rows every day. I'm not bragging because my DB is huge (it's not) but more commenting on the fact that so many slashdotters seem to lack a perspective on what a truly large DB is.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Samah (729132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309561)

It seems my estimate of 1M was rather off. I just did some SELECT COUNT(*) from some of the frequently used tables and got about 20M per table. That's "used per day", not including historical records. I don't lack a perspective; in this case "huge" means "larger than most private clients". When it comes to "large databases", there's a difference between "huge" and "behemoth" (ie. Google).

Re:Drizzle? (4, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308769)

Don't use stored procedures. They concentrate ...

You obviously have very little experience ...

Horses for courses, mate. There are good arguments in either direction.

Yes. Which is exactly why sweeping generalizations like "don't use stored procedures" are idiotic. There are a wealth of cases where stored procedures are best practice.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309071)

I disagree.

The database server is designed to handle data efficiently. Most large DB's, Oracle, SQL Server, Sybase, DB/2, etc.. have years of experience in doing one thing, handling large amounts of data efficiently. Application servers are multifunction tools, while they are used to handle data retrieval, it's not their primary purpose, they have other things to do and can do them more efficiently.

While I think it's great to be able to throw ad-hoc queries down to the DB from the app server, I found that I'm better off in the long run creating a well defined interface to the data. I'm also happy that I can lock out all queries from the web servers, so in the event someone does manage to break the web server's security, all they can do is process data through the interface, and not inject something into the query processor.

All that being said, it depends on the task at hand. If all you're doing is a few small queries, then yeah, the app server is easier. If you're going to dump 50,000 records with multiple tables, the db server is where it belongs.

Re:Drizzle? (5, Informative)

krow (129804) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308155)

Hi!

We are still working on the first version of Drizzle. While folks are using it, I don't really recommend it at this point. When we feel like it is ready for adoption we will publicly start recommending it.

Cheers,
      -Brian

Re:Drizzle? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308179)

why is a post about a DBMS forked from MySQL, and mentioned right in the summary, being modded Offtopic?

personally, i hadn't heard of Drizzle until today. i'm pretty curious about what others think of it too if anyone has experience with it.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Zarluk (976365) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309175)

I need a lean and mean webDB, so, if not Drizzle, does anyone have other recommendations?

PostgreSQL!!! You'll get a stable DBMS, stored procedures, triggers -- and it's pretty fast handling large tables if properly tuned ;-)

Drizzle... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25307719)

For shizzle!

Goodbye MySQL (1)

progrmr (1212662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25307823)

See, this is why MySQL should never have signed on with Sun - I dig Java, but I really dig MySQL and its clear that the difference is Sun. This sucks - seems like the end of MySQL. Maybe I should focus on .NET and SQL.

The real question here is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308003)

who IS the drizzle?

Noooooo!!!!!!!! (2, Funny)

Metroid72 (654017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308079)

David, don't quit in this market.
Unemployment is rampant and you'll likely be lowballed for your new job.

MySQL greetings (5, Informative)

martenmickos (467191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308419)

Thanks slashdotters for being passionate about all topics FOSS and MySQL!

David's departure is in all ways amicable, and he will continue to be an ambassador for MySQL and for free and open source software in general. For some time already, David was working only part-time for MySQL. After about 25 years of working on MySQL and the projects that preceded MySQL, he very much deserves do whatever he pleases to.

Marten
SVP Database Group at Sun
(previously CEO of MySQL AB)

Re:MySQL greetings (-1, Flamebait)

progrmr (1212662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25308559)

Yea right - whatever SUN rep - Why was David so happy w/ MySQL before your "aquisition" of the company and now he wants to leave? Oh sure, its amicable...whatever...

Re:MySQL greetings (3, Insightful)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309099)

Would you say otherwise if it wasn't amicable?

Re:MySQL greetings (5, Informative)

martenmickos (467191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309631)

I think if you ask people who know me, they will say that I stand for transparency and truthfulness.

If the departure had not been amicable, I guess I would not have commented on it at all, or I would have focused my commentary on whatever other positive aspect I could find.

But the best may be to ask David directly. I don't want to publish his email address here, but it is not difficult to guess. Most early employees of MySQL AB, like myself, use firstname at mysql dot com.

Marten

P.S. Generally I am somewhat perplexed by the attention this topic is getting. The beauty of open source is that you can be actively contributing and participating in your favourite project whether you are employed by a certain company or not. So what's the big deal about David choosing not to be employed? He is not abandoning MySQL. With the enormous payout from the acquisition, the founders can now allow themselves to pursue whatever interests and daily routines they like. Good for them, and I think we should all just be happy that open source can provide not just software freedom but also financial freedom. Just my 2c.

Man makes millions, quits his job! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308987)

That's some real news.

Something fun to try (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25309011)

This will give you some fun:
SELECT * FROM tbl1 AS t LEFT JOIN tbl2 AS u ON u.key=u.key

It's bad syntax and apparently an infinite cross product or something. The join criteria is stupid, but that will create a giant temp file and maybe crash your server. Killing the thread with the admin GUI doesn't seem to matter much or at least takes so long I couldn't tell if it just killed itself or worked. It ran out of free space about the same time so...

So with user level access a syntax error gets you a DOS.

I'm a pretty big MySQL fan, but you don't want to let idiots use your server...self included.

A database software with hunderds of bugs? (1)

seek31337 (520238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309261)

zomg!

Bet oracle has, like 3. Postgres, too!

zwtf! Obviously no company could ever run on MySQL in this state. I am sure it constantly crashes.

Re:A database software with hunderds of bugs? (1)

seek31337 (520238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25309289)

Oh, and I am never putting MySQL on any of my servers until they fix bug #16565 [mysql.com]! The bastards!

David Axmark (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25309745)

Lots of press about a not to large event. I have been working less with MySQL over the past several years (as the company has grown). And when we got acquired we got to big for me (I like to know everyone in a company).

A huge part of my work have been spreading FreeSoftware/OpenSource and I will continue to do that. And tell about the MySQL story many times more hoping to inspire others to try to start FLOSS businesses.

And I hope to meet many of all the people who made MySQL such a sucess many times over the coming years. /David (who posts so seldom he does not remember his slash login/password..)

 

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...