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!

cancel ×

245 comments

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

Licenses are a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44919795)

Just sell us the damn software and nobody gets hurt.

Re:Licenses are a scam (3, Interesting)

gagol (583737) | about 10 months ago | (#44920821)

It should be like cars, you can rent and pay base fee plus usage, or buy it and its yours.

and so meanwhile... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44919801)

... PostgreSQL is over in the corner, saying, "Hey guys! I'm open! I'm open!"

But no one throws the ball the Postgres. Because no one like Postgres.

So Postgres goes home and does some homework.

Re:and so meanwhile... (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#44919885)

Funny, but not actually true.

We used to use MySQL unless a customer demanded Oracle. Now we've switched to Postgres, because MySQL's future is so hazy and we typically have to support these systems for ten years or more.

Re:and so meanwhile... (1)

XaXXon (202882) | about 10 months ago | (#44920127)

mysql's future isn't hazy. It's all about mariadb.. but they're not really different.

Re:and so meanwhile... (3, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 10 months ago | (#44920545)

"Now we've switched to Postgres, because MySQL's future is so hazy..."

It's no more hazy than it was when Oracle took it over. The MariaDB project is largely run by ex-MySQL developers... where's the problem? If anything, it was Oracle that muddied the waters. Now things are getting BACK on track.

I like Postgres in some ways, but it has some significant deviations from standard SQL syntax, and other idiosyncracies.

For me (I'm not doing anything "enterprise" at the moment), the slight performance gain of Postgres is not worth putting up with its oddities.

Re:and so meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

greg1104 (461138) | about 10 months ago | (#44920693)

As long as MariaDB is requiring copyright assignment [mariadb.com] , there's every reason to believe it will be sold off again the same way MySQL was. The FSF gets away with that for GNU projects because they've never abused contributor trust before. Monty is no FSF, and there's no reason believe MariaDB will remain outside of commercial control any better than MySQL did. I can't believe people are falling for the same trick again.

PostgreSQL aims for SQL standards conformance [postgresql.org] as much as possible. It's hard sometimes due to the difficulty of participating in the standard process [lwn.net] . The idea that MySQL does a better job in that area is kind of odd though. You'll have to list some sample Postgres "oddities" to be credible with that claim.

Re:and so meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 10 months ago | (#44920863)

What I don't get is this...why does anybody think MariaDB is ANY safer? I mean its still run by old Monty, right? The guy that sold MySQL out from under the community to Oracle in the first place? And don't he still require that ALL code contributed have the rights signed over to him?

If he fools you once? Shame on him. If he fools you twice? You are an idiot that deserve what you get.

Re:and so meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920565)

Funny, but not actually true.

It's not true because YOU use it in your unknown home-brew web project?

Re:and so meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920655)

You mean you didn't switch because MySQL is a shit database, and has always been?

Re:and so meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44919927)

PostgreSQL's biggest disadvantage over MariaDB is that it's not a drop-in replacement for MySQL.

Re:and so meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

pspahn (1175617) | about 10 months ago | (#44920175)

That sounds like more of a disadvantage of the application itself rather than the DB platform.

This is 2013... use an ORM.

Re:and so meanwhile... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920497)

You are not a real programmer aren't you? ORM is mapping table row and its relations to an object thus Object Relation Mapping. It doe not do anything to with accessing database itself. That is what adapters are for or PDO.

Re:and so meanwhile... (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 10 months ago | (#44920731)

Yes, thank you. PDO was what I was going for. Do you realize how many acronyms are in my brain? It's not like I said "use an ACL" or something unrelated.

No, I'm not a real programmer, I'm just someone who writes code that sells stuff, which includes being savvy in so many areas that sometimes I mix up my acronyms. This is beneficial, however, since if I was a "real programmer" I wouldn't have the slightest clue how to sell the products that I sell (not without a minor in horticulture or something, at the very least).

Re:and so meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920787)

PDO

"real" programmers indeed, your php is showing ;)

Re:and so meanwhile... (5, Funny)

greg1104 (461138) | about 10 months ago | (#44920715)

PostgreSQL's biggest disadvantage over MariaDB is that it's not a drop-in replacement for MySQL.

Postgres has a blackhole engine [bitbucket.org] that loses data in unpredictable ways now. But that only emulates parts of MyISAM.

Re: and so meanwhile... (5, Interesting)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 10 months ago | (#44919931)

The real joke of this is that Postgres has been, by any measure, a better database than MySQL for twenty years. Back in the early 1990s when we were running on i386s and Sparcs, there was some argument for using MySQL because (in those days) the fact that it didn't have proper transactions and proper reverential integrity, it was faster for simple queries from single tables. Now, even that isn't true any more. Postgres is just the best engineered RDBMS out there bar none, and it's free.

Re: and so meanwhile... (5, Funny)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 10 months ago | (#44919993)

Maybe Postgres lacks discoverability?

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 10 months ago | (#44920329)

I don't know why you say that. I discovered it years ago!

Reverential integrity? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920101)

One entire Billy Graham at a time?

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

CODiNE (27417) | about 10 months ago | (#44920163)

Why is this? I checked their website, it's not a 1990's throwback. I remember the Postgres vs MySQL arguments from back in the day.

Is their syntax weird? Is there some painfully annoying thing about it? Were there different licenses in the past causing a strong divide which are no longer relevant? Was something done years ago which alienated a large chunk of the community? How did MySQL get such critical mass?

Re: and so meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920183)

How did MySQL get such critical mass?

Probably the main reason is that it has a "design philosophy" of "if you can't do what the user wants, better to do something and say it's all OK than to give an error", which some people mistake for ease of use.

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | about 10 months ago | (#44920767)

That's funny right there....

Re: and so meanwhile... (-1, Troll)

Narcocide (102829) | about 10 months ago | (#44920201)

The primary arguments against it traditionally (though these may be out-of-date now, and there have historically been some very popular 3rd party patches to add these features) for business customers have been that it doesn't do users/permissions or network connections. So, basically its like MySQL with more Oracle-esque PL/SQL language extensions, but no GRANT tables and no clustering features. So, really its more like a stand-alone flat-file database handler like Berekly DB or SQLite that just happens to have some high-end query syntax.

Saying "yea but its faster than MySQL if you train harder, and all the missing features can be added in a comletely unsupported fashion with no network of trust" never sells to business executives. They would rather buy faster servers than let you spend business hours getting smarter.

Re: and so meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920213)

What the fuck?

Re: and so meanwhile... (-1, Flamebait)

Narcocide (102829) | about 10 months ago | (#44920365)

Your astro-turfing army can't change the truth just by silencing it.

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44920415)

doesn't do users? in what sense? doesn't do network connections? in what sense?

care to elaborate? the little try I did with postgres couple of years back sure seemed to..

from what I gather most people who choose mysql chose it because it was in their how to start web programming book.

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920433)

Good thing it's not the truth, then. If there was ever a version of Postgres that didn't support users and network connections, it was so long ago as to be entirely irrelevant (older than 1995, the oldest version with release notes available on the website), and such an ancient version would have had plenty of other disadvantages too.

Re: and so meanwhile... (5, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about 10 months ago | (#44920395)

Uh, Postgres has all the standard GRANT and REVOKE, plus some things I don't immediately recall MySQL supporting. This support goes back at least to 7.3, which is a decade old. From what I can tell from the changelogs, looks like they started adding that around 1997 in 6.0.

I'll also note that PostgreSQL places a lot of importance on following the standards - they seem to support far more things than MySQL. In fact, looking at their "list of unsupported SQL features", it seems the bulk of them are "embedded [outdated programming language]" of one sort or another, or fancy XML stuff.

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 10 months ago | (#44920785)

"The primary arguments against it traditionally [...] for business customers have been that it doesn't do users/permissions or network connections."

W-H-A-T!!!???

Where do you have heard something so out of reality, boy?

"So, really its more like a stand-alone flat-file database handler like Berekly DB or SQLite that just happens to have some high-end query syntax."

Ok, ok, I see, you are just trolling by turning old MySQL-related arguments to PostgreSQL.

Have a nice day.

Re: and so meanwhile... (5, Funny)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 10 months ago | (#44920231)

BetaMax vs VHS. Blu-ray vs HD-DVD.

Obviously it's because the porn industry chose MySQL.

Re: and so meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920315)

At the time, linux dweebs only cared about performance. Worrying about reliability and correctness and transaction isolation was all stuffy big corporate thinking that young hip dynamic linux types didn't want.

If anything, the syntax of MySQL is weird. No other SQL database required an explicit 'lock-reread-unlock' approach.

Re: and so meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

hibiki_r (649814) | about 10 months ago | (#44920443)

MySQL got its critical mass by it's easy, tight integration built into PHP. Any random college student could build a website backed by a database pretty quickly. It was a total failure to anyone that wanted to do serious work with it, but serious work was never an issue. As those college students entered the workforce, they tried to keep the tools they learned. People worked around their tech's limitations until new versions added it in, instead of migrating to competitors.

So it was a perfect storm or filling a niche for a community that just kept growing.

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about 10 months ago | (#44920637)

PostgreSQL didn't release a solid Windows version until 2005 [internetnews.com] . That's the biggest reason why MySQL adoption outpaced it for so long, but the plentiful PHP/MySQL examples certainly contributed too.

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 10 months ago | (#44920757)

"How did MySQL get such critical mass?"

Because it had a very good entry curve for developers that didn't know any better.

More or less like PHP (it's no chance that they got popular together).

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

richlv (778496) | about 10 months ago | (#44920219)

no, the real joke is that any story about mysql on slashdot gets 3 times more comments about postgresql :)
it's fairly annoying, i must admit

Re: and so meanwhile... (2)

emilper (826945) | about 10 months ago | (#44920229)

back in the early 90 MySQL and Postgresql did not exist

We did have MiniSQL and PostGres (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920363)

in the mid-90s though.

License (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920245)

MySQL have an real open source license, the GPL.

Postgres does not have any real open source license. Their license is not OSI-approved nor FSF-approved.

They have some custom vanity license of their own.

Re:License (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920441)

MySQL have an real open source license, the GPL.

Postgres does not have any real open source license. Their license is not OSI-approved nor FSF-approved.

They have some custom vanity license of their own.

It is OSI-approved: http://opensource.org/licenses/PostgreSQL

Re:License (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920513)

Bullshit.

It's a variation of the BSD/MIT license, which has fewer restrictions than the viral GPL. It's functionally equivalent to the most permissive Creative Commons license, only requiring attribution. It's explicitly listed on the OSI website [opensource.org] as an approved license.

"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies."

The only people who object to this type of license are GPL bigots who want to impose their version of "freedom" on everyone else.

Re: and so meanwhile... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920269)

No, the real joke is Firebird DB is better than both MySQL and Postgres in terms of speed and disk usage.

Nobody uses it though. Firebird is to MySQL as BSD is to Linux. That is, it had some commercial/legal "complications" in the beginning of its life that have forever made it a loser despite being better.

Re: and so meanwhile... (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 10 months ago | (#44920357)

I know. The inertia with MySQL is just pain ridiculous. I'm currently weening the company I work for off MySQL because we're starting to get amounts of data that is necessitating ridiculous sharding frameworks in MySQL with implications for applications, and everyone seems to think this is fine and a sign that everything is OK. I've heard it all - "MySQL is what I know", "Does Postgres have support for bulk loading", "We don't need what Postgres provides, we can do all that in MySQL"........

The answer to everything with MySQL is yet more sharding, more complexity and hiving more and more stuff into temporary tables with less rows in them. But hey, MySQL is perfectly fine and it has great performance!

No Cross Database Joins (-1, Troll)

KalvinB (205500) | about 10 months ago | (#44920381)

PostgreSQL is a toy. It also can get sequences out of sync with data in the database. That's just asinine.

PostgreSQL is blacklisted now for my development. If it can't do basic things that a programming language can't make up for efficiently then it's just garbage. I haven't run into anything that MySQL can't do that are mission critical that they be done in MySQL.

Start with MySQL. If you outgrow it, use a real commercial product that has been vetted in real production environments. By the time your business outgrows MySQL you should be making enough money that an MS SQL Server won't break the bank.

Re: and so meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920495)

Reverential integrity -- does that mean that a god isn't deleted if at least one person is worshiping that god?

Re: and so meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920755)

Oracle products have Deferential Integrity - You must bow down before your software overlords (and give them heaps of cash whilst you are at it).

Re: and so meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920629)

Postgres has been, by any measure, a better database than MySQL

By most measures, you're right. But MySQL has always been somewhat more accessible than Postgres. It works better in shared hosting environments and it's easier for a beginner to go from nothing to executing queries. IMHO, MySQL has succeeded primarily because it let people who have no business running databases run a database.

Re: and so meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920671)

Postgres is just the best engineered RDBMS out there bar none, and it's free. ...And yet we all hate it, and those who try to talk it up on /. just annoy us because we still don't like it.

Re:and so meanwhile... (1)

diemuzi (940206) | about 10 months ago | (#44919971)

We drop mySQL long ago due to fact that Oracle as a whole sucks! I truly believe they really don't care about their users. pgSQL is the way to go. Still and always will be stable with by far more options than what mySQL will ever dream about.

Re:and so meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920085)

... PostgreSQL is over in the corner, saying, "Hey guys! I'm open! I'm open!"

But no one throws the ball the Postgres. Because no one like Postgres.

Maybe becaus Postgres is an arrogant asshole that thinks he can tell the other kids how to play the game ("how dare you to play with me, root"), and pouts until you play by his rules...?

Re:and so meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920359)

Because no one cares about it being open. Open source fanboys are investing themselves in the wrong thing if they think that it's as simple as just being open.

Re:and so meanwhile... (3, Interesting)

Maow (620678) | about 10 months ago | (#44920387)

I think what's missing is an easy upgrade path from MySQL to PostgreSQL.

For example:

  • * mysqldump | psql doesn't work even with --compatibe=postgresql: ints have precision (int(11)) and comments don't work the same
  • * Inside psql there isn't a handy "show create table" feature (that I've found)
  • * No way to "use dbname" for switching DBs inside psql - must quit and restart with different dbname
  • * Issues with double quotes vs single quotes vs ticks - no opinion on which is best way to go but would be nice if a translation were available
  • * The commands aren't as easily memorable: \d vs show tables: another area where some compatibility would be nice. I kind of prefer the show tables, show databases, show create table style instead of \d, \l, \(can't do it in psql, use pg_dump)

Those are some things off of the top of my head.

Makes it so much more work to switch - each dumped table must be manually tweaked to load into psql.

I'm playing with it now, and growing more comfortable with psql but not sure I'm going to dump, edit, import all tables in all|any databases so I can have... 2 db servers running on my box.

I'm itching for a good reason to switch.

It's a shame that the new recently that Google is dropping MySQL didn't end with "and they're going to use Postgres" -- they have the resources to make a conversion suite / patches that would make it easy for a large scale adoption to occur.

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920679)

MySQL can't defer referential integrity checks until transaction commit. That should be a deal breaker from day one.

Re:and so meanwhile... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920739)

Some fair points, but...

* mysqldump | psql doesn't work even with --compatibe=postgresql: ints have precision (int(11)) and comments don't work the same

If MySQL has a --compatible=postgresql option that doesn't actually produce PostgreSQL-compatible output, then that's pretty unambiguously MySQL's fault, and not something that PostgreSQL can do a great deal about.

No way to "use dbname" for switching DBs inside psql - must quit and restart with different dbname

\connect, or alternatively, use schemas instead of databases and SET SEARCH_PATH.

Issues with double quotes vs single quotes vs ticks - no opinion on which is best way to go but would be nice if a translation were available

MySQL being wildly non-standard.

Re:and so meanwhile... (1)

Maow (620678) | about 10 months ago | (#44920841)

Some fair points, but...

* mysqldump | psql doesn't work even with --compatibe=postgresql: ints have precision (int(11)) and comments don't work the same

If MySQL has a --compatible=postgresql option that doesn't actually produce PostgreSQL-compatible output, then that's pretty unambiguously MySQL's fault, and not something that PostgreSQL can do a great deal about.

True, and I'm certainly not putting blame on Postgres, but it would be nice if they had a pg_mysql_import_from_dump as MySQL's compatibility is b0rked.

I see various scripts out there, on Github for example, that claim to aid in the transfer. But it seems the consensus that manual fiddling is required. Perhaps I should make a name for myself by building something that eases the process. A "pg_mysql_import_from_dump" as it were.

No way to "use dbname" for switching DBs inside psql - must quit and restart with different dbname

\connect, or alternatively, use schemas instead of databases and SET SEARCH_PATH.

Ah, good idea. Schemas are an option but if transferring a, say, Drupal install over, one doesn't want to have to ensure that the schema is prepended onto all SQL. I prefer to have individual DBs. So when in psql, I shall try \connect. And... it works perfectly. Thank you.

Issues with double quotes vs single quotes vs ticks - no opinion on which is best way to go but would be nice if a translation were available

MySQL being wildly non-standard.

Again, not disagreeing.

Re: and so meanwhile... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920807)

"" No way to "use dbname" for switching DBs inside psql - must quit and restart with different dbname ""

You should STFU and RTFM before throwing FUD. A simple \c dbname does the trick. (The c stands for connect if you need a fucking mnemonic)

Re:and so meanwhile... (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about 10 months ago | (#44920889)

There's no direct replacement for SHOW CREATE TABLE. There are two similar things and a tool to do it though:

-Run CREATE TABLE y AS SELECT * FROM x LIMIT 0; That will make you another table just like the one you have, but with no data in it. That only gets you an exact duplicate, it doesn't show you the DDL or allow changing it in the middle. (You can then ALTER TABLE the result though, for 'like this but with X different' cases)
-pg_dump with the options to only dump the schema. You'll have to dig the definition out of the dump.
-pgadmin3 shows the SQL needed to re-create a table when you look at it in the GUI.

Enough people use pgadmin3 that there's not a lot of demand for cloning this MySQL-ism exactly. Just like \d instead of SHOW TABLE and learning that you connect to new databases in psql with \c, it's not a long-term pain point. Ditto for conversions, which hurt because Postgres is a lot more strict in what it will accept. That's a feature, not a bug.

Don't give a shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44919807)

Who will pay for MySQL enterprise licenses into the future?"

Left MySQL years ago and never looked back. I don't care if it lives or dies - not my problem - it's Oracle's.

"Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (0)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 10 months ago | (#44919811)

seriously, how is this even a question?

Re:"Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44920007)

I'm more interested in if Facebook hasn't already gone off Mysql.

and if they ever did pay for Oracle for support. I mean, why the fuck, if you can employ your own mysql experts. would oracles guys seriously be of much help? wasn't the reason they went with it originally that they didn't have to pay...

Re:"Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 10 months ago | (#44920057)

I've wondered this as well. Facebook is one of those companies that can pretty much attract whatever talent they want. Hell, they could probably just outright poach a MySQL engineer or 10 for cheaper than official support.

Re:"Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (1)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#44920151)

Maybe all the people versed in MySQL who have no scruples already work for Facebook?

Re:"Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 10 months ago | (#44920367)

" Facebook is one of those companies that can pretty much attract whatever talent they want. "

That is like saying that Phyllis Diller can have pretty much any man she wants.

Re:"Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920661)

That is like saying that Phyllis Diller can have pretty much any man she wants.

Phyllis Diller is dead.

Re: "Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 10 months ago | (#44920893)

Does Oracle even sell support for custom forks of MySQL for Facebook to buy?

Re:"Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#44920033)

Because the managers who select databases are buying ass-coverage. Performance and cost are secondary considerations.

Re: "Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 10 months ago | (#44920865)

Remember their motto of "move fast, break things." Go look at their data load some time. I doubt they're running a version close enough to stock that Oracle would be able to support it if they wanted to. Their backup/recovery system alone is insane, and they host 2 custom branches of MySQL on GitHub. When was the last time a software vendor supported a client's custom patches?

Keep in mind that Facebook employs more than 10x as many people as MySQL, and has multiple MySQL teams. It wouldn't surprise me if Facebook has a bigger MySQL dev effort than the company. Either way, they handle all database support internally.

Government (3, Interesting)

armanox (826486) | about 10 months ago | (#44919817)

Government for one. The US Department of Energy still uses MySQL, and I doubt they'll move off it anytime soon.

Re:Government (2)

confused one (671304) | about 10 months ago | (#44919975)

Are they paying Oracle for support? Or are they just using MySQL in their server farm, supporting it with internal resources?

Re:Government (1)

armanox (826486) | about 10 months ago | (#44920699)

Knowing them, they're paying someone for support. Everything they use has a support contract in my experience (which has recently ended, I'm no a federal contractor).

Enterprise? (1)

RichM (754883) | about 10 months ago | (#44919877)

Who will pay for MySQL enterprise licenses into the future?

I've never come accross any company, or individual, who actually does this.

Re:Enterprise? (5, Informative)

Florian Weimer (88405) | about 10 months ago | (#44919913)

And the article confirms the large-scaler users aren't part of that elusive group, either:

Many of the largest MySQL users — Twitter included — do not currently pay Oracle for an enterprise licence. Twitter, like Facebook, prefers to build their own extensions and customisations off the community version.

Re:Enterprise? (0, Offtopic)

aitikin (909209) | about 10 months ago | (#44919953)

Wait, you actually RTFA. You must be new here.

The Bold and the Beautiful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44919879)

I love this new DB drama that's going on. Please keep us updated.

and so meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44919937)

... PostgreSQL is over in the corner, saying, "Hey guys! I'm open! I'm open!"

But no one throws the ball the Postgres. Because no one like Postgres.

So Postgres goes home and does some homework.

How do you get cheaper than free? (2)

msobkow (48369) | about 10 months ago | (#44919973)

You don't have to pay for a commercial license of MySQL as far as I know, unless you want support for it.

And even if there were a dollar difference, I doubt it would be enough to cover the cost of redeveloping everything to use NoSQL servers.

Hell, it's not even cost effective to switch to another SQL database like PostgreSQL.

Can you imagine the downtime required to export Facebook from MySQL and to re-import it to another database? The users would go ballistic!

I don't expect any "earth shattering" movement by any of the big users in the near future.

Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (3, Funny)

sgbett (739519) | about 10 months ago | (#44920039)

"One does not simply export Facebook!"

Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (5, Informative)

rml1997 (929311) | about 10 months ago | (#44920065)

Hell, it's not even cost effective to switch to another SQL database like PostgreSQL.

Can you imagine the downtime required to export Facebook from MySQL and to re-import it to another database? The users would go ballistic!

I don't expect any "earth shattering" movement by any of the big users in the near future.

I'm involved in a project that involves moving databases. We write each transaction to both the old and new structure using our data access layer, then export historic data and eventually, once we've verified the new system is working as expected, remove the old structure from the data access layer. This is the main reason data access layers are used.

Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 10 months ago | (#44920087)

Great when you have one database instance and can afford to set up dual instances.

How do you propose doing so for something like Facebook or Twitter that have thousands of nodes and servers?

Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920103)

Great when you have one database instance and can afford to set up dual instances.

How do you propose doing so for something like Facebook or Twitter that have thousands of nodes and servers?

If you managed to set up thousands of instances of your old DBMS, what stops you from doing it again? You certainly have some sort of automated management framework with that many servers, so why can't you configure it to do whatever's needed for the migration?

Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920305)

To hide your own crimes

Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 10 months ago | (#44920413)

I don't know, but whatever system they come up with, I bet it will be fabulous [fabfile.org] !

Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 10 months ago | (#44920725)

I still think it would be easier for someone as large as Facebook to take a snapshot of MySQL and maintain/enhance it themselves than to switch databases.

Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 10 months ago | (#44920809)

"How do you propose doing so for something like Facebook or Twitter that have thousands of nodes and servers?"

Well, it's not a matter of proposal. Facebook have done it at least twice and it was done the way the grandparent sketched.

'looking at' NoSQL? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#44920017)

That's strange, for some reason I had the idea that Twitter and Facebook were already using NoSQL. If they aren't, then is any large company using NoSQL?

Re:'looking at' NoSQL? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920159)

Sure,the bulk of our healthcare data is stored in NoSQL databases, and has since the 70's.

Re:'looking at' NoSQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920179)

Google does - extensively

They pay enterprise? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 10 months ago | (#44920105)

Enterprise gives you basically better administration tools (monitoring, backup, HA, etc), and support. If you really need them, you will still need them if you switch to MariaDB, or will be a reason to not to swich (there are more players in the support area and extra tools, anyway). But most of hose players have good internal knowledge on MySQL, and have contributed code and patches to it, probably are not the target for the enterprise version.

But if is enough for you the plain, non enterprise version of MySQL and existing available tools probably you will be better with MariaDB (or any of the other mysql compatible alternatives)

what about slashdot? (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 10 months ago | (#44920135)

are you guys still using MySQL?

"Web-scale"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920153)

Could someone please tell me what "web-scale" means?

Re:"Web-scale"? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44920261)

as far as I gather it's a joke.
youtube for a video.

it has to be a joke. just has to!

(I guess it's supposed to mean that your site wont break even if you get slashdotted)

What the hell is "eyeing off"? (1, Offtopic)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#44920181)

but Facebook and Twitter are also eyeing off more open options

Facepalm.

Re:What the hell is "eyeing off"? (-1, Offtopic)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 10 months ago | (#44920281)

It's completely oblivious to anyone who isn't a petard.

Re:What the hell is "eyeing off"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44920401)

So it's OK to just shit out random words as long as there's still enough semblance of sense for people to figure it out?

Re:What the hell is "eyeing off"? (-1, Offtopic)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 10 months ago | (#44920585)

Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiish!

"may have" (1)

Truth_Quark (219407) | about 10 months ago | (#44920241)

Google's switch [to MariaDB] may have been motivated by a lawsuit filed by Oracle over alleged use of Java patents in Google's Android operating system.

You don't say.

Aquire and Obscure (2)

Joebert (946227) | about 10 months ago | (#44920287)

I don't think Oracle really ever planned on doing much more with MySQL than keeping control of it until it dies.

They should switch to Mongo DB (3, Funny)

citizenr (871508) | about 10 months ago | (#44920419)

Its web scale!

Forked It (1)

neonmonk (467567) | about 10 months ago | (#44920709)

I'd be really surprised if these companies haven't actually forked MySQL and are maintaining their own internal version.

I switched to MariaDB (3, Funny)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 10 months ago | (#44920811)

I switched to MariaDB but my database is the size of a microbe so the few quirks were of no difficulty; but there were quirks. MariaDB was not a plug in replacement. I love it and wouldn't go back but it did take a tiny bit of work. So if I had one zillion servers with crazy databases I would be taking my time on that one. I suspect that what you will see is new development experiments depending on MariaDB and slowly increasing the pressure until they just make the switch.

The other question is how many obscure features of MySQL features are they using? (Including custom code)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>