Beta
×

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!

There Is No Reason At All To Use MySQL: MariaDB, MySQL Founder Michael Widenius

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the reunion-episode dept.

Databases 241

sfcrazy writes "In this exclusive interview MySQL founder Michael Widenius talks about the reasons of decline of MySQL, what Oracle is doing wrong and how MariaDB is fast replacing it. There are quite some interesting information in this interview. The take out of this interview is — '...there is no reason at all to use MySQL 5.5 instead of MariaDB 5.5. The same will be true for the next generation.'" Of course, he has an economic interest in getting people to use MariaDB. Hard to argue that Oracle isn't evil though.

cancel ×

241 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43636789)

apk is a troll

Re:First (4, Interesting)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year ago | (#43637229)

Michael Widenius has benefited from gathering millions of developers around his product and letting them down.

He cannot sell source code of MariaDB this time, but he still can sell the brand name and the community which has trusted him again to earn another fortune. Fool me once, full me twice...

Postgres (5, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43636791)

...there is no reason at all to use MySQL 5.5 instead of MariaDB 5.5

Or Postgres, which is better than MySQL in numerous objective/technical ways and has been for years.

or sqlite (5, Insightful)

mattdm (1931) | about a year ago | (#43636835)

As a general rule of thumb, if you need something lightweight, SQLite is the way to go. If you need something more powerful or sophisticated than that, PostgreSQL.

MySQL and spinoffs all occupy an uncomfortable middle ground. 99% of the small web sites which are built around MySQL don't need it.

Re:or sqlite (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43636925)

MySQL and spinoffs all occupy an uncomfortable middle ground.

Indeed. As well as SQLite, there is also a new generation of "NoSQL" databases that might serve some projects better. Any way you look at it, MySQL and MariaDB are stuck in a kind of limbo now. They could survive for years on nothing but inertia, but it's hard to see how they would be a good choice for any new project today.

Re:or sqlite (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43637559)

Just for reference, 'NoSQL' is not new. We've all be using variations for years ... since that would include all berkley db databases.

Please don't throw around meaningless buzzwords like you know what they mean.

Re:or sqlite (0)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43637813)

I didn't say NoSQL was new. I said there was a new generation of NoSQL databases that might serve some projects better, which is true, and even then I was only citing them as another example of alternatives that leave MySQL/MariaDB in limbo where they are unlikely to be a good choice for any new project today, which is the fundamental point that you didn't address at all. Your flamebait post contributes nothing of value to this discussion.

Re:or sqlite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43638075)

I openly admit that I donâ(TM)t know either, but isn't Berkeley DB / GDBM just a key/value store, while NoSQL means a semantic triplet store?

If not, then IMO it should be that way!

Re:or sqlite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637151)

As a general rule of thumb, if you need something lightweight, SQLite is the way to go. If you need something more powerful or sophisticated than that, PostgreSQL.

MySQL and spinoffs all occupy an uncomfortable middle ground. 99% of the small web sites which are built around MySQL don't need it.

Whoa.. for a rule of thumb that's a way too big for a jump from SQLite straight to the big and bulky PostgreSQL. You do know there are good databases outside PostgreSQL right?

- Need a key-value storage? Use tdb (or any dbm-like that you can find).
- Need a lightweight SQL-using database? Use SQLite.
- Need a lightweight and reliable database? Use Firebird.
- Need a database for your project(s) that might take off, raking millions of dollars and the one you want to rely as the backbone of your next company? Then .. use PostgreSQL.

Other than that I use whatever available. For example need a database for web applications that is likely to be found on a $5-dolar-a-month "webhosting"? Well looks like we'll use MySQL today.

Re:or sqlite (3, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | about a year ago | (#43637295)

- Need a key-value storage? Use tdb (or any dbm-like that you can find). - Need a lightweight SQL-using database? Use SQLite. - Need a lightweight and reliable database? Use Firebird. - Need a database for your project(s) that might take off, raking millions of dollars and the one you want to rely as the backbone of your next company? Then .. use PostgreSQL.

A Mysqlite, Mariadblite, or postresqlite database would be really nice. Something that requires similar installation to sqlite (eg not much at all) and not a lot of tuning for a tiny database but that can scale up to the full thing as required. Most applications i've used have a compatibility layer that means you can choose from sqlite, mysql, or postgresql at installation time, but choosing sqlite initially because it's easy doesn't necessarily mean there is a straightforward migration path when you outgrow it.

Re:or sqlite (4, Insightful)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year ago | (#43637213)

Most people and websites do not agree with you. Ask facebook , wikipedia and thousands of others (if not millions).

SQLite is not scalable. MySQL is lightweight and scalable.

PostgreSQL has not been successful in penetrating cheap shared hosting providers. There is no web based tool comparable to phpMyAdmin and there are more reasons why PostgreSQL has not been successful despite its technical advantages.

Re:or sqlite (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#43637301)

I use MySQL for a lot of personal projects on a shared host. However, I don't have any idea how anyone uses PHPMyAdmin. It gets the job done in a pinch, but it really doesn't work as well as MySQL workbench. You should be able to set up an SSH tunnel so you can use MySQL workbench. I imagine the same could be done for whatever tool is popular for PostgreSQL. Using a web based tool doesn't make any sense in either case.

Re:or sqlite (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637367)

The gui managers all suck. You have to use the command line.

Re:or sqlite (4, Funny)

gagol (583737) | about a year ago | (#43637435)

The command sucks. I uses a led and a switch connected to my fiber to send commands.

Re:or sqlite (4, Informative)

S.O.B. (136083) | about a year ago | (#43637673)

PostgreSQL has not been successful in penetrating cheap shared hosting providers. There is no web based tool comparable to phpMyAdmin and there are more reasons why PostgreSQL has not been successful despite its technical advantages.

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Postgres has a poor toolset (4, Interesting)

mveloso (325617) | about a year ago | (#43637353)

The main reason to stay away from PostgreSQL is its toolset. Specifically, it's almost impossible to find a tool that allows you to analyze and tune it's performance. I say 'almost' because there may be one out there that I haven't found...but I've looked on and off for years, with no results.

For mysql there's lots of tools, like jetprofiler. For oracle you can pay. For SQLite, well, who cares. For psql, it's (as one website put it) a black art. Do you really want that as your back end?

Re:Postgres has a poor toolset (2)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about a year ago | (#43637801)

Thanks for that information. I have always wondered why PostgreSQL adoption isn't as high as MySQL.

Re:Postgres has a poor toolset (4, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year ago | (#43637883)

Have you not looked at the enterprise DB folks? A few years ago I was working on a project that started out using MySQL because MySQL was everywhere and initially it was for a single store. Then that became 50 and then 200 and we ran into some interesting problems with MySQL. Long story short, we ported the backend to PostgreSQL in a couple weeks and then ran for another three years processing tens of thousands of transactions a day without further hiccups from the database before we sold the company. The plan originally was to use PostgreSQL and then migrate to DB2 at some point once the revenue was coming in. Even when we reach that point PostgreSQL was handling everything we threw at it and we did hire Enterprise DB to come in and tune the database set up since we didn't have and couldn't afford to hire a DBA full-time at that point. IIRC they had a pretty decent toolset that we used there after, but it wasn't free as in beer or speech.

Re:Postgres has a poor toolset (3, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#43637989)

I'm calling liar. No one on purpose MOVES to db2

Re:or sqlite (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637901)

Or, you know, Firebird DB. Way better performing than PostgestSQL and a good alternative to MySQL. PostgeSQL performance sucks ass.

Re:Postgres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43636853)

I've heard that for years, but is Postgres better than MariaDB?

Re:Postgres (2, Informative)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#43637135)

I've heard that for years, but is Postgres better than MariaDB?

MariaDB is a fork of MySQL. So the answer is a resounding yes, in every way, no matter what your target platform is.

Re:Postgres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43636883)

...there is no reason at all to use MySQL 5.5 instead of MariaDB 5.5

Someone needs to tell him that the MySQL install base is significant, and changing to MarinaDB just for the sake of changing is going to cost a lot of small websites a lot of money for basically no measurable difference.

Re:Postgres (1)

kbolino (920292) | about a year ago | (#43636895)

The entire point of MariaDB is that it is a fork of MySQL which retains compatibility. It is, for the most part, a drop-in replacement.

Re:Postgres (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637077)

The entire point of MariaDB is that it is a fork of MySQL which retains compatibility. It is, for the most part, a drop-in replacement.

Sometimes that 2-3% difference will fuck you up.

Re:Postgres (0)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43637149)

True, but in regards to the existing customer base, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if MariaDB has better compatibility. If you are migrating to a new version, there might be less trouble with MariaDB.

Re:Postgres (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637405)

True, but in regards to the existing customer base, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if MariaDB has better compatibility. If you are migrating to a new version, there might be less trouble with MariaDB.

OK, logically, riddle me this: how does a replacement possibly have "better compatibility" than the very thing for which it is a "drop-in replacement"? You see, it makes no sense. At most, it could only achieve equal compatibility, otherwise any substantial differences render it other than a drop-in replacement.

What was your point again?

Re:Postgres (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#43637589)

How many api's and frameworks and apps that will freak if they do a string search for "Mysql" and just throw an exception??

Shit like this is why we still use IE 6/8 at work. If you are an ISP with 10,000 customers you will piss at least someone off, probably hundreds where they will seek a competitor if you did such a thing and cost them money. Maybe even sue you back to recoup the losses etc.

There is a lot of shitty software at there and that signature is not a characteristic of such the proprietary software world. Many customers use obsolete software because it if aint broke why fix it?

Re:Postgres (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637975)

I have Percona on my machine and all the directories and binaries are still named "mysql".

And you're right, shitloads of buildscripts and so on would explode if they renamed any of this.

Re:Postgres (0)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year ago | (#43637585)

How well does MariaDB work with Qt 4.x? I haven't had a chance to test it for myself yet.

Re:Postgres (4, Informative)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | about a year ago | (#43637037)

I'm confused, on my debian vps, another debian dedicated server and a further centos server, I could just apt-get the new software.

since it's 100% compatible and most small websites are not even going to touch the potential problem areas, how would this cost a "lot of money" ?

I could upgrade my database in the time it takes to download the packages, hardly a lot of money and even less of time.

Re:Postgres (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | about a year ago | (#43637421)

I recently made the change on a firmware product. It took me 1 week of dedicated time, and about a week of test time. The big time waste for me was that we use mysql++ so I had to get that to link against the maria c libs, then build rpm's for everything. Other than that it was a drop-in replacement and a search-and-replace on the library to link against.

Re:Postgres (2)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43637277)

I'm pretty sure that Monty knows the size of the MySQL install base.

Re:Postgres (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43636947)

True, but that's a bigger change. MariaDB is a drop-in replacement for MySQL, because it is just a forked/renamed MySQL. To switch to Postgres typically requires some porting [postgresql.org] .

Re:Postgres (0)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#43636989)

Postges seemed positioned to be an oracle replacement, while Mysql always seemed to be Web OLTP focused. I haven't seen a real useful comparison in years. So much has changed performance wise in Mysql, that it would be worth another look. One of the new features which really speeds up Mysql under heavy load is the thread pool, which isn't available in the free version oracle gives out. I think Maria DB has an alternative written by the same guy who now works for Maria.

Despite all of the Postgres users saying its much better, I'm not aware of any large websites using it as a backend at scale.

Re:Postgres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637015)

Despite all of the Postgres users saying its much better, I'm not aware of any large websites using it as a backend at scale.

Why the fuck would you expect to know that? Most websites don't go round bragging about what database they use because it's of absolutely no interest to their users. You could be using huge Postgres-backed sites every day and never know it.

Re:Postgres (0)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#43637381)

Because many do write articles about their architecture and the tools they use. Twitter, facebook, google, yahoo, flickr, and other smaller ones have talked about their architecture and the tools they use. I've never come across one that mentioned postgres.

Re:Postgres (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#43637605)

None of the ones you described use Mysql anyway. Most use nosql for their backbone for webscale.

Is Wikipedia webscale? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43637757)

None of the ones you described use Mysql anyway. Most use nosql

Wikipedia uses MySQL. But it also serves most anonymous hits out of a no-SQL cache.

webscale

Careful, lest two Animal Crossing rejects pop in to start talking about MongoDB.

Re:Postgres (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43637855)

Facebook [gigaom.com] ,Twitter [twitter.com] and Flickr [flickr.net] seem to disagree with you.

Re:Postgres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637945)

But they do not webscale! [youtube.com]

Re:Postgres (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637089)

As far as I know, .org's backend has been postgres. It's conderiably harder to run a GTLD than a website, but according to your criteria, it's uninsteresting.

Re:Postgres (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43637115)

Postgres works just fine for backing web sites. I've built some of them myself, and so have plenty of other people I know. It has basically all the same advantages that MySQL used to have, plus numerous technical improvements on every level from everyday query support right up to heavyweight architectural tools.

As for your final points, well, popularity is not the same thing as quality, which is why MySQL has done as well as it has for so long, and just because you didn't bother spending ten seconds on Google before posting, that doesn't mean no-one operating a substantial web site runs Postgres underneath it.

Structured Quota Language (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43637781)

It has basically all the same advantages that MySQL used to have

Except, of course, for the ability to scale down to shared web hosting. A lot of hosting providers appear to refuse to offer PostgreSQL. A comment [slashdot.org] to a previous story about SkySQL, which appears to be related to MariaDB, claims this is because PostgreSQL lacks per-user storage quotas.

Re:Structured Quota Language (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43637861)

OK, that's a fair point, though I'm not sure hosting providers are falling over themselves to offer MariaDB either if my own experience is at all representative. In that market, it's more about popularity and the established brand than anything else, and if you want anything other than a canned MySQL/WP/etc. set-up then you basically need to move up a tier and get yourself a shell account on a VPS or something.

Re:Postgres (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about a year ago | (#43637065)

In other news...Oracle is slated to release a new entry-level, free DB competitor named LarryDB.

Re:Postgres (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637107)

But it isn't a drop in replacement which is what MariaDB and Percona aim to be.

Want to switch from MySQL (or close relative) to Postgres? Be prepared to re-write your shit.

Re:Postgres (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637175)

Now _that_ is misinformation.

A preperly tuned Postgres simply cannot deal with the load that a properly-tuned MySQL database can.

Postgres is just as much crap as Ingres was.

Re:Postgres (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43637767)

Well, that statement was just damning enough to sound convincing while still being vague enough that it doesn't really say anything.

I believe the expected response at this point is now: [citation needed].

Re:Postgres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637205)

...there is no reason at all to use MySQL 5.5 instead of MariaDB 5.5

Or Postgres, which is better than MySQL in numerous objective/technical ways and has been for years.

Once again, you miss a big piece of the picture. Maria is feature and syntax compatible for millions of existing applications. If you want to volunteer to rewrite those apps, or come up with some other migration scheme, have at it. Otherwise, the only thing you are talking about is people starting new applications, and that don't have to rely on what the hosting platform provides.

Re:Postgres (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43637247)

But you gotta give the dude credit as he managed to sell a product and keep it at the same time, walking away with the code, the customers AND a big fat check. How he managed to get those fools to buy it without making him sign a non compete I don't know but he pulled it off, hell you might as play the WB "sucker" music when you talk about Oracle and MySQL.

So lets here it for old Monty, his balls are big and plentiful.

Re:Postgres (1)

Freultwah (739055) | about a year ago | (#43637305)

Good luck getting Wordpress to run with Postgres, at least without horrible hacks.

Re:Postgres (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43637609)

In many ways, WordPress : CMS :: MySQL : Database.

Both WordPress and MySQL are great success stories in terms of popularity and to some extent creating an ecosystem as a result. That doesn't make either of them particularly good technically. The way that WordPress was basically hard-coded to use a specific database is not any other database's fault. It's just another symptom of the questionable architectural decisions underlying it.

Re:Postgres (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about a year ago | (#43637871)

Of course, same can be said about Windows

Re:Postgres (1)

Freultwah (739055) | about a year ago | (#43637951)

I did not imply that it's in any way PostgreSQL's fault, just that some very popular software projects/products are (stupidly, methinks) hardcoded to use a specific database, which kind of limits one's options somewhat and hinders choice. You'd go with the better system, but you're stuck with whatever database system is forced upon you. WordPress is not the only culprit. DAViCal, for instance, only runs on top of PostgreSQL.

Re:Postgres (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43638005)

OK, it sounds like we probably agree on most of this then.

Re:Postgres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637311)

Postgres was technically inferior in that it failed to include native replication for a long, long time. This alone shut it out of a lot of projects.

Re:Postgres (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43637655)

Postgres was technically inferior in that it failed to include native replication for a long, long time.

And that hasn't been the case since Postgres 9.0, which has been out for several years.

Also, I notice how you sneaked the word "native" in there, conveniently excluding all the external solutions that existed before.

Re:Postgres (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#43637575)

As with superior technology like Windows 7, Linux, Chrome/Firefox, Python 3, it is always ignored due to legacy issues for people needing XP, Solaris/SCO, IE 6 - 8, python 2 etc.

As long as CPanel only supports MySQL and all the tools and code support mysql then postgresql doesn't have a prayer. Does PostgreSQL allow multiple user accounts like mysql yet? ISPs are in a catch 22 as well where customers do nto demand it because they do not support it, they do not support it as customers do not require it.

Re:Postgres (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43637843)

As long as CPanel only supports MySQL and all the tools and code support mysql then postgresql doesn't have a prayer.

A prayer of what? If we're restricting the discussion to MySQL's stronghold, which notwithstanding some very large users I would argue is mostly cheap shared-hosting services, then neither Postgres nor MariaDB seems likely to get widely adopted any time in the near future. If we're talking more widely, about projects with a free choice about their hardware, software and hosting arrangements, then I don't think cPanel is particularly important in the big picture.

Re:Postgres (1)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year ago | (#43638079)

Umm cPanel does support PostgreSQL. I don't particularly care for it as I'm a MySQL guy, but I've done many a Postgres install on cPanel servers and enabled it in WHM/cpanel.

Re:Postgres (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43637787)

One reason to not go to postgres just yet is legacy code/apps/data that uses MySQL. If you put MariaDB instead of MySQL even the same binary data files should work, and you should get better performance and have room to do further improvements gradually (i.e. taking advantage of other storage engines) while all the rest keeps working.

If you will to start from zero in a new project/code, or have margin to reestructure everything that is db specific to Postgres, then could be a better option (or not, meatware also matters, and that includes programmers, admins and support with familiarity with one environment and not with the other).

Re:Postgres (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43637887)

Please notice that I only advocated for Postgres on objective/technical grounds. There are always questions beyond pure technical merit when choosing which technologies to use, and things like non-standard behaviour/vendor lock-in are just as damaging in MySQL's case as they can be in any closed/proprietary system.

I suppose in this case, the question is for how long MariaDB really will be a foolproof switch from MySQL, given the direction Oracle seem to be taking MySQL in these days. Your wetware and incremental change points are all fair and valid, but I suspect in time they will naturally weaken.

Re:Postgres (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about a year ago | (#43637909)

It depends. MySQL's championship role has always been lightning-fast reads from tables that change rarely and don't need much in the way of concurrency protection. I believe it was also the first free database to have a concept of partitioning.

The main problem with MySQL lately (past 5 years or so) has been the fact that it's really easy to get an inflated impression of its more "hardcore" abilities, and not discover until it's too late that MySQL's ability to handle things like failover, replication, partitions, and materialized views(*) aren't quite as capable as someone who's used to Oracle & reads MySQL's docs might initially think they are. I fell into that trap myself ~3 years ago, and got bitten pretty *hard* by harsh reality not living up to first impressions.

(*)'it's been a couple of years, but from what I remember, MySQL had a huge 'gotcha' with materialized views that rendered them mostly useless for me at the time... I think it involved having a function in the select statement that was a LOT more restrictive than the rules Oracle imposed at the time. I vaguely remember it was something like "Oracle couldn't index a MV if you had a function in the select clause, but MySQL didn't allow you to have a function *anywhere* in the select, even if it was merely transforming one value directly and deterministically into another." -- or something to that effect. I know that the whole matter of function-based indices is a problem in general, but I just remember thinking, "Oh, cool... MySQL supports them now!", then discovering later that MySQL's rules were much, much more rigid about what was and wasn't allowed than Oracle's (and Oracle's were pretty anal to begin with).

Monty is a stooge (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43636793)

The Maria builds have not been particularly special, and its hard to take anything he says about MySQL seriously. So much doublespeak. Stop posting his rants as relevant or news. This is little more than an ad for his support/consulting org.

Until you do support/enterprise (2, Interesting)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#43636955)

If you want the "free" version, there isn't a significant difference for 95% of users, agreed. However, MariaDB support is miles better and cheaper than Oracle's "Enterprise MySQL" support is. Also, calling Monty names is cheap and rather unfounded.

Re:Until you do support/enterprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43638091)

Percona offers better MySQL support than both, hands down. Who do you want consulting from, the MyIASM guys (Monty) or the InnoDB guys (Percona)...

That's funny (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43636803)

It's also what Postres fans have been saying for years. Maybe they're right about other things?

Free migration then? (3, Insightful)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#43636993)

Maybe Postgres is a better DB in a theoretical way. It could be that in a brand new design for an application, it will be better in practice as well. However, if you run existing code or use an "off the shelf" open source application, chances are, it will be tested and developed on MySQL/MariaDB and not on Postgres. Until the choice is just as easy to make as the choice for either MySQL or MariaDB, I doubt it's "better" for 90+% of all MariaDB/MySQL users. Those users have a choice for either something that works, or something that will need a lot of porting and testing done. It may seem small and insignificant to Postgres experts to do that, but to those 90+%, it ishttp://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/05/05/2050220/there-is-no-reason-at-all-to-use-mysql-mariadb-mysql-founder-michael-widenius?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed# most likely far beyond their capabilities, probably cost prohibitive and in a lot of cases just not an option at all.

Re:Free migration then? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637041)

Those users have a choice for either something that works

You wouldn't be saying that about MySQL if you'd ever had the misfortune of actually using it.

Re:Free migration then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637805)

Those users have a choice for either something that works

You wouldn't be saying that about MySQL if you'd ever had the misfortune of actually using it.

I've been using MySQL for over a decade and never thought of it as a "misfortune". In fact, the few times I've had a chance to work with Postgres in any depth, "misforunte" is probably a pretty good summary of those experiences.

Re:Free migration then? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637893)

I've used both, as a newb I find Postgres to be a horrible experience and MySQL not a horrible experience.

Re:That's funny (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637029)

Of course there's a reason to use MySQL: because your code is using some of those special MySQL extensions like INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE .... I expect MariaDB as a fork allows this little bit of vendor lock-in h8fulness too.

Re:That's funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637695)

That's a nice convenience method. In PostgreSQL we handle it with PL/pgSQL.


update table...;

if found then
    return;
end if;

insert...;

Re:That's funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637579)

It's also what Postres fans have been saying for years. Maybe they're right about other things?

All three of them?

Sign of OSS maturity (5, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#43636849)

Most MySQL/MariaDB users wont care at all about this, because there are millions of them who are not Slashdot or Amazon or Facebook - this DB silently powers millions of Internet connected things, and it's just a given that it works, performs, has fit-for-purpose stability. It's a sign of how far OSS has come when people have the luxury of quibbling over WHICH free, capable DB they want to base their business model on.

Re:Sign of OSS maturity (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43637039)

It's a sign of how far OSS has come when people have the luxury of quibbling over WHICH free, capable DB they want to base their business model on.

I'm not aware of any reliable numbers on how many copies of those databases are actually in use. Unfortunately, the only numbers that there's any confidence in is based on sales figures, which, given that open source doesn't sell software licenses at anything but, uhh, $0, isn't representational. Oh I know, I'm going to burn in the eternal fires of hell for saying open source isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but you did use the phrase "business model."

If we're talking about a database that businesses depend on, then we need to start with the first question a manager's going to ask about: How much support can I get if this thing blows up? And the followup: How does the labor pool look? For example, it's not hard to find people with, say, Cisco hardware experience on their resume. But what about Acme Routers Inc.?

I'm not saying it isn't nice to have choices; nor am I saying that these aren't mature products that can fill the needs for many businesses. I'm just saying, from a management (not geek) perspective... what closes "the sale" is support and labor availability.

Remember: These people are willing to pay tens of thousands for a single server license. They're not doing that for shits and giggles. So if we want open source to spread, we need to do more than thump our bibles and quote the GPL before our morning bread... We need to make a business case. And no, a reply on slashdot with a link to someone's blog or a glowing personal review doesn't count.

Pretend I'm the CTO of a Fortune 500 company, and make your case for switching from, say, Oracle, to MariaDB. Back it up with case studies from other Fortune 500 businesses that have made the switch, and the costs and problems they encountered doing so. And I want to know about support -- if I want it, how long will it take to shove your engineers on a plane and get them to my headquarters to fix a snafu?

Re:Sign of OSS maturity (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about a year ago | (#43637217)

Your burger is the MySQL protocol. Your toppings are the implementation: MySQL, MariaDB, Percona Server, or any other. You want fries with that? Percona offers support contracts for any MySQL variant.

Re:Sign of OSS maturity (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43637269)

Your burger is the MySQL protocol. Your toppings are the implementation: MySQL, MariaDB, Percona Server, or any other. You want fries with that? Percona offers support contracts for any MySQL variant.

Error: Invalid object passed to function in line 1. Expected array of 'fact' but got 'handwave' instead.

Re:Sign of OSS maturity (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about a year ago | (#43637335)

I understand that you're in denial, but it will pass eventually.

Re:Sign of OSS maturity (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#43637967)

I read your posts for awhile.

Your enterprise is so backwards and has a fear of anything new. You praised IE 6 a few years ago because you didn't liek the new gui's of Firefox and IE 8 and Windows 7 at your place is still a slow process with people crying and kicking.

Have you considered working in a more forward thinking environment where you are not a cost, and people are so scared of change? I work in such an environment now and since I am a contractor already have something else lined up.

Praise the lord (-1, Flamebait)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about a year ago | (#43636893)

Also, Maria has strong Christian association and hence sells better to ameri^H^H^H^Hreligious zealots. JosefDB and BabyJesusDB would also be serious contenders. Praise the lord! Amen.

Re:Praise the lord (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43636927)

Shut the fuck up, bigot.

Re:Praise the lord (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43636929)

JihaDB crashed my filesystem :(

Re:Praise the lord (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43636953)

HitlerDB deleted all my financial software :(

Re:Praise the lord (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637043)

I've found JudasDB to be very reliable so far.

Uh, what? (-1, Troll)

adosch (1397357) | about a year ago | (#43636897)

Of course, he has an economic interest in getting people to use MariaDB. Hard to argue that Oracle isn't evil though.

Sure, OP. Oracle isn't evil. Right. That's like saying The sky isn't blue or the grass isn't green. I think it's fair to say they have a VERY bottom line approach to business. Their stove-pipe approach to support when it comes to lock-in on hardware and ugly software models and support for Oracle DB, IM, Oracle Solaris (and Linux), and being purely selfish with ZFS is just nauseating anymore.

Absorbing MySQL, and pretty much train wrecked it, then having OSS community and founders of MySQL during it's infancy peak time forked over to create MariaDB just shows you the potential that MySQL had and Oracle failed at.

Re:Uh, what? (2)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43636941)

What the heck? That's EXACTLY what OP said. Re-read the sentence you quoted.

Re:Uh, what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637001)

Reading comprehension: don't post without it.

What am I saying, this is Slashdot. Carry on.

Re:Uh, what? (3, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43637619)

and being purely selfish with ZFS is just nauseating anymore.

Uhm, your saying that its Oracles fault Sun and many other people dont' like the viral nature of GPL and intentionally licensed the software in such a way that prevents your silly fanboy license from being able to leech it? You're saying that its okay for you to have software your way ... but not for anyone else to be free to have it their own way.

You're just another one of the freeloaders. Any talk about liberty is just bullshit your spewing to hide the truth.

My OS has been using ZFS for years without any problems, stop your whining, you got what you intended out of your license. GPL is incompatible with ZFS, not the other way around. Get a clue

There Is No Reason At All To Use MySQL.. (4, Informative)

JoeCommodore (567479) | about a year ago | (#43637047)

My reason is because there is no compelling reason right now for me to switch. Once it is in my next Ubuntu upgrade or my ISP switches to it then I'll do so as well.

Re:There Is No Reason At All To Use MySQL.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637241)

I'm just in the process replacing our server and decided to give maria a try. Everything worked nicely, except when using SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS, ORDER BY is ignored in a subquery.

There was never a rrason to use it (2)

siddesu (698447) | about a year ago | (#43637243)

Especially since sqlite came about. For no-setup, small-size databases, you use that. For more features, if you need em, there's Postgress.

Yada Yada Yada.. More of the same drivel. (5, Insightful)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about a year ago | (#43637697)

98% of "web Programmers" wouldn't know a good database if it dragged them out of the parents basement and gave them a blow job.

I would not recommend using Oracle to run a simple web site. It is complete over kill. I would not recommend using MySQL / Maria to run the VISA processing center either.

99.9% of application builders do not even know the value of a good, much less great, DB engine and that is proven out time and time again when you look at their DB schema and all you see are tables. They all insist on doing EVERYTHING on the front end and never get , even when advised about, the amount of power that DB's like Oracle, PostGres, MS-SQL, DB2 and even MySQL have these days. One well written Stored Procedure ( Oracle Speak ). Package ( Oracle Speak ), function ( PostGres Speak ) or Procedure ( MySQL/ MS-SQL Speak ) can eliminate 1000's of lines of java, python, ruby, php ( pick your language ) front end code, and perform the function 1000x faster and more reliably.

Every tool has its use. When you need massive scaleibility, up time in the 5 9's category and support RIGHT FUCKING NOW WITH AN ACTUAL ENGINEER when you dial the toll free number 24/7/365 you get the big dogs like Oracle,MS-SQL or DB2. If those factors are less important then you have other choices like Postgres ( they REALLY need to fix the TXID issue ) which is very powerful but lacks the kind of SLA's that you can get with Oracle / Microsoft. If just getting feedback from the support community is fine the MySQL / Maria are fine choices.

I design VERY large databases that push DB's to their limits. Google had to design their own because nothing off the shelf or even from the FOOS community could handle their requirements but it takes a small army to deal with it and most companies don't have the resources or don't want to have that many people on their payroll.

The bottom line is use the DB that fits your requirements, fits your budget and has the support organization around it so when you have a problem your requirements are met, and it really does not matter who you get it from. Don't be religious about it. ALL of these companies are trying to build the best product to serve their market and that is the bottom line.

Michael Widenius is nothing but a little bitch. He sold his DB to sun for how much again? 1 BILLION dollars I think it was. Now shut the fuck up, go sit on your riches and do MariaDB if you want but stop bitching about what happened to MySQL because he YOU are the idiot who cashed in and sold out.

Re:Yada Yada Yada.. More of the same drivel. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637961)

Big advice to anyone who ever gets the "bright" idea of trying to port a substantial application from MySQL to Oracle: don't. And if your boss tells you that you have to, start looking for a new job, because it's a fool's errand almost guaranteed to fail. Not even *Oracle* would ever recommend porting an app from MySQL to Oracle. The problem is that MySQL does well in many scenarios as long as you humor its quirks, but those quirks you've humored will come back and destroy your performance, or make it outright impossible to port the application to a database like Oracle at some later point in time. The problem is that MySQL has certain rules and constraints that you CAN work around to get acceptable performance, but those work-arounds are either frowned upon, or point-blank prohibited, by databases like Oracle. Rewriting your query to get good performance out of MySQL will almost certainly result in the same query causing Oracle to either reject it, fall flat on its face, ditch its indices, and/or do full table scans to satisfy you.

I have one good reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637769)

...my employer says so.

hasn't been any reason to use MySQL for 1 decade (2, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43637783)

Postgresql is more feature complete, just as fast, and properly free software.

Speaking of economic interest... (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | about a year ago | (#43637791)

Oracle has a HUGE economic interest in making sure MySQL sucks bad enough that customers buy Oracle databases instead.

Re:Speaking of economic interest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637865)

Oracle has a HUGE economic interest in making sure MySQL sucks bad enough that customers buy Oracle databases instead.

And Monty has an economic interest in making sure people need plenty of handholding and consulting to get MariaDB to do the job for them. When he was one of the ruling circle at MySQL AB I remember they played plenty of games to make sure that big users needed to buy a dual license for production deployments.

Sad to say, Microsoft and Amazon are the two companies whose business model depends on selling in volume, and trying to get customers to be productive out of the gate w/o extra support. OSS companies like Red Hat, as well as the big proprietary software vendors like Oracle, IBM, and SAP, make a lot of their money from expensive support contracts.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?