- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
MySQL 4.1 moves in on Oracle
|
|
|
Comments (4)
In your dreams: MySQL nearing parity ...
I'm sorry to say that I must agree. Stored procedures and triggers are an absolute must in any commercial grade production RDBMS. MySQL may be good for web based data bases, but for real world development Oracle stands first followed by the rest in, catch up mode. Sure its expensive but when your livelyhood depends on it,the expense may be justified. It a shame the licencing is such a ripoff.
I compare MySQL more to the old Dbase or Paradox software. good for small home DB apps as recipe books and album/cd databases.
Sure Oracle and Mysql are in a race, but not in the same stadium.
nicsmr
Sure Oracle and Mysql are in a race, but not in the same stadium.
nicsmr
Perhaps MySQL is pursuing the wrong goals
MySQL forte has been support of heavily used web sites with hight performance and low maintenance database. To aspire to become a leading RDBMS is probably wasted effort or too much effort for too little return (c.f. "In your dreams: MySQL nearing parity ..." thread).
They should consider to that their place may be taken by the recent contribution by IBM of a light weight database to the Apache Foundation as an incubator project. MySQL could find itself losing on two fronts: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticl... against the new Derby database (once known as Cloudscape).
Anyone with more experience than I with MySQL care to comment?
They should consider to that their place may be taken by the recent contribution by IBM of a light weight database to the Apache Foundation as an incubator project. MySQL could find itself losing on two fronts: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticl... against the new Derby database (once known as Cloudscape).
Anyone with more experience than I with MySQL care to comment?
Maybe I should not comment because I haven't used the IBM database, and IBM has a good track record of incubation projects such as Postfix. But I've used MySQL in critical production apps for 5 years and I trust it with my career. It may not scale as high as Oracle or DB2, but for 95% of all business apps, I think it performs at very high level with no hassles. In one application, I am using replication to spread the load between 3 MySQL servers and it has been rock solid. It was also easy to configure. I've used Oracle, SQL Server, Progress, Pervasive, and Postgresql, but strongly prefer MySQL over all others. I simply love it.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Lets get serious, MySQL does not even have stored procedures (and it was my impression they were not even planning to add them) and subselects are really not that exotic although they can be costly to execute. Furthermore, MySQL does not support views, triggers (and probably neither table nor column constraints). The former three: stored procedures, views and triggers are the planned additions to version 5.
A bit of reality: Microsoft's SQL Server (based on Sybase) supports User Defined Functions as well as stored procedures (and in my view too many other features). Free (as in no cost versions) of both Sybase and Oracle Linux Developers versions are available. Just check out the features in Sybase's Transact-SQL (the cleaner, more refined of these two) and Oracle's PL/SQL and you will see very useful coding features for building robust stored procedures. Their performance should be acceptable for both too.
My expertise is more on the Sybase side with a bit thrown in for SQL Server due to their using the same coding language base. If you are interested in a free (as in freedom) database product I would suggest your investigating PostgreSQL that has been moving more deliberately towards a full RDBMS. Moreover, this latter group seems to have been making more progress while emitting less grandiose statements.
My point essentially is simply: MySQL has a valid role, but nothing like what is claimed in this article. If you doubt this just investigate the available (free and demo) versions of several commercial databases to see how lacking MySQL is in comparison. I guess this is a case of marketing that is running ahead of reality.