RSS
Twitter
Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
from the you've-left-your-core-components-exposed dept
With all the buying that Oracle's been doing lately, it would have been fairly easy to overlook the supposedly small acquisition the company made on Friday. In fact, it didn't seem worth posting about. However, as the discussions about the acquisition are spreading, this small deal could actually be a very big deal. Unlike their recent big enterprise software deals that often seemed to be grasping at straws in dwindling markets, buying Innobase may put MySQL in a world of hurt. For years, Oracle has insisted that it doesn't really compete with MySQL at all, but that argument is pretty weak when you look at the overall trends of the market, and the number of companies who are figuring out how to get by pretty nicely with the open source database. However, as Jeremy Zawodny points out, MySQL may have left one of their most important parts completely exposed. Innobase makes a key component of MySQL that it needs to compete effectively... and now Oracle owns it. While Oracle says they'll continue to support it, they're also going to "negotiate" when the contract between Innobase and MySQL comes up for renewal next year. It does make you wonder why MySQL didn't try to buy them earlier, as it certainly looks like a big weakness hasn't just been exposed, but ripped out. It's likely that MySQL will try to figure out some way around this -- and, if not, that some other open source databases will have an opportunity to move up in the world. However, in one small move, it certainly looks like Oracle may have given themselves a bit more breathing room in the database world.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
RE: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
I can't believe Oracle was allowed to buy MySQL! This is horrible news. Shouldn't there be some kind of antitrust suite filed against Oracle? That's like allowing Microsoft to buy Oracle. There's only a few reliable database options out there as it is. Now there'll be even less when Oracle crushes MySql. What government official let this happen? Who do I need to complain to? California's attorney general?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
they didn't buy MySQL, they just bought the company that owns the rights to the one piece of MySQL that gives MySQL a competitive edge.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
I wouldn't call a component that provides MySQL with something Oracle already had as a "competitive edge".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
the innodb code is gpl'd so mysql could just fork it and keep using it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
> the innodb code is gpl'd so mysql could just fork it and keep using it.< br>InnoDB is as dual licensed as MySQL itself. The commercial license of MySQL, which you need to sell any non-FOSS software of yours that uses or needs MySQL, contains a commercial license for InnoDB. That GPL fork, people keep talking about, could only be shipped with the GPL'd MySQL and requires that the software using it is free open source as well. You think MySQL AB can live without selling those licenses?
Jan
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
Integrating InnoDB with MySQL where InnoDB is licensed under the GPL would mandate releasing MySQL only under the GPL.
Bye, bye, licensing revenue. Bye, bye, profitability.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
MySQl has a competitive edge? (besides being opensource) which is?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
"MySQL has a competitive edge? (besides being opensource) which is?"
...price?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
About the only one. I don't understand the love for MYSQL it just isn't that good. It lacks several key features, its a nightware to administer, corrupts all the time. Postgres is just so much better if you want the 'price' comparison.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
Yeah... it's just that postgres is SO LAZY!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
From a pure database perspective, PostgreSQL is much better than MySQL. But, every performance test we've done shows MySQL to be orders of magnitude faster than PostgreSQL. Maybe we're just not configuring it correctly, but we just couldn't figure out how to make PostgreSQL fast.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
"From a pure database perspective, PostgreSQL is much better than MySQL. But, every performance test we've done shows MySQL to be orders of magnitude faster than PostgreSQL. Maybe we're just not configuring it correctly, but we just couldn't figure out how to make PostgreSQL fast."
If anyone else is having problems like this, please contact me or write the pgsql-perform@postgresql.org email list for performance tuning help.
For simple read-only operations, MySQL is a bit faster, but under real-world, read/write loads, PostgreSQL does a bit better. Also note that MySQL is much more lax with its FSYNC policy than PostgreSQL meaning a little more raw speed under certain circumstances, but *much* more likelihood of corruption or data loss in the event of an unexpected power failure.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Tuning postgresql
The basic idea is this: First you configure it to have gobs of shared memory, then you use sysctl.conf to tell the kernel to allow for more shared memeory, then you configure 4 or 5 key postgres memory allocation parameters to balance the use of your shared memory according to your load pattern. (Actually, I see that all I really tweaked was shared_buffers, work_mem, maintenance_work_mem, and effective_cache_size. YMMV.)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
How well does clustering or replication work on pigsquatal?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
How well does clustering or replication work on pigsquatal?
I don't know, the discussion was about PostgreSQL, Oracle and MySQL.
If you learn to spell, you could use search engines to answer your own question.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
"price?"
Sorry. PostgreSQL, Firebird, and SQL-Lite are also Free. And they are far better suited for most tasks (when taken as an aggregate)
However, this piece is critical for MySQL to have any competive placement outside of content management. Without InnoDB, you have no transactional support, and I am sure that many of the new features like triggers in MySQL 5 will not run on MyISAM tables.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
> and I am sure that many of the new features like triggers in MySQL 5 will not run on MyISAM tables.< br>Sorry, but you are as sure as you are wrong.
Regards, Arjen.
Community Relations Manager, MySQL AB.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Did Oracle Just Make MySQL Worse?
Quoting Arjen:
Now that's what I call an authoritative response! (-:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
MySQL's competitive edges vs Oracle...
...include up-front price, relative simplicity, footprint, being taken seriously and even in a limited but growing number of areas, flexibility. None of which can be making Oracle very happy, if they have any kind of business radar on at all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Oracle bought Inno Database. InnoDB supplied MySQL the ability to utilize foreign keys and other key functionality present in larger databases. And this isn't that big of a deal. As stated above, InnoDB is GPLed. MySQL can take the code and fork it. They could even hire some of the InnoDB developers if they'd like.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
As the article notes, not all of InnoDB's tech is GPL'd...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
If you want the fastest, most stable enterprise-class SQL server with good features and open source freeware then check out FirebirdSQL at http://www.firebirdsql.org/
Enjoy, -pc
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
MySQL's license to sell InnoDB was renewed by Orac
See Zack Urlocker's blog.
To, the poster who said "MySQL corrupts all the time": can you substantiate this? I've used MySQL for many years with not a single integrity problem.
Recently my employer had no hesitation in choosing MySQL 5 for a high availability, transactional, financial application - which was very quick to develop, and setting up replication was a snap. We're in good company, too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment