MySQL Beats Commercial Databases in Labs Test 419
An anonymous reader writes "Many of the big players now offer free or 'light' versions of their databases, some would call them crippleware. Builder AU compared databases from Oracle, IBM, Microsoft and MySQL, and the open source offering came out on top."
Isn't this an EULA violation? (Score:5, Insightful)
I like MySQL, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I don't really care what the answer to that is -- either way, I win. Either commercial DB vendors really are releasing heavily crippled versions (bad for them), or MySQL really is the best DB out there (good for it).
And what about postgres?
Obligatory.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what about PostgreSQL? It should fare very well.
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way is that bad for them? Let's face facts, by the time you're using a DB that requires some serious power it probably means you're making money with it. That's the idea behind writing enterprise level software: to make cash. These lesser "crippled" version are goodwill as I see it, and mostly for students or armature enthusiasts.
By the time you're making money from technology the user should be willing to ante up a few shekels to keep the game going instead of being cheap and running down the market.
Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things... (Score:3, Insightful)
Second - Sweet Hog of Prague! Oracle 10g costs $24 grand Per CPU!?!?!?!?
NeverEndingBillboard.com [neverendingbillboard.com]
Crappy business model... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Our scenario in this comparison calls for a database solution for a relatively small e-commerce company with less than 200 employees. The company sells DVDs and books over the Internet and will initially have around 1000 customers"
Lemme see...five customers for each employee? With an American workforce pulling down $40K each with benefits, that means each customer needs to buy $8K of useless crap from this one company every year.
SQL Server Express Is Mostly for Developers (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of having to have access to a full fledged SQL Server, you use SQL Server Express to develop your application and then deploy it to a full SQL Server when that server becomes available.
Since SQL Server Express supports the vast majority of the features [microsoft.com] that a developer might need, it is very useful during the initial development of an application.
In my experience, SQL Server Express is great for basic projects (like a personal web site or blog) and for the initial phases of development of a "real" project. Once you start getting into the realm of serious applications, where one might need finer grained control of isolation and locking, or when you are at the point where you need to do performance testing of your application, you really do need to move up to the full SQL Server box.
At any rate, I'm not really sure this comparison is all that fair. MySQL makes an attempt to be a database server for "real" applications, where as SQL Server Express is more of a development tool / MS Access replacement that is targeted at personal projects.
Most important comparison... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this an EULA violation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the license might make MySQL cost $$$..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correctness isn't negotiable (Score:3, Insightful)
count(*) against a table that is under heavy load and you get:
1) the count when you issued the command, via a lock (table) and scan
2) a secondary table/counter that gets updated automagicaly with each insert/delete commit
mysql chooses number 2. why? Well by the time you can do anything with the results, the lock will be gone. The table will no longer be in the state it was when you asked. Good for you, you just wasted DB cycles because you want 'accurate' data.
Re:Isn't this an EULA violation? (Score:5, Insightful)
"free" for development or personal use, and then compare them against only ONE OSS database. Would you like to guess which OSS database that is?
The entire story feels trumped up to appeal to MySQL fans.
I love MySQL but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sick and Tired (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, even ignoring the fact that these are crippled versions of the real deal, this isn't even a proper test! Let's see what a REAL DB comparison looks like:
Complete TPC-H Results List [tpc.org]
I know that MySQL and PostgreSQL aren't included in that result list but that is how a test SHOULD be performed, not with the ridiculously hand-wavy methods the authors use to 'score' each DB software.
That being said, no one has any business saying MySQL >> DB2 or Oracle. That's a joke. MySQL would SUFFER in the 10TB test. Also, where is Teradata? Furthermore, the way that the article treats SQL Server is even more ridiculous, because their 'free' version is likely the least functional of the lot since it is SPECIFICALLY aimed at learning on one's own desktop. Nothing to see here, just a random useless article trying to say something to push its writers' ideas without much basis.
like having my grandma rate sports cars (Score:5, Insightful)
PRODUCT SELECTION
1. where's postgresql? This is the product that the commercial vendors need to be the most nervous about. Sure, they're loosing more low-end revenue to mysql right now, but postgresql is getting picked up by some big players. It is far more mature than MySQL, doesn't have the quality issues, isn't partially owned by Oracle, etc.
2. where's at least a mention of all the various other solutions - from Firebird to Derby (Cloudscape)
FUTURE PROOFING
1. They mistakenly say that mysql doesn't require scaling up to enterprise versions like db2/oracle do. This is incorrect because mysql lags behind oracle & db2 for performance in many situations:
- since it doesn't support query parallelism (which provides near linear performance improves to db2/oracle)
- since it doesn't support partitioning (which can provide 10x performance improvements to db2/oracle)
- since it doesn't have a mature optimizers (which means that queries with 5 table joins can tank)
- since it lacks memory tuning flexibility
Together this means that as your data increases you have to continue moving a mysql database to larger & larger hardware.
In other words, if you need to scan a table with 10 million rows in it, then join that data against 6 other tables - db2/oracle can:
- leverage partitioning so only scan 1mil rows or so instead of 10mil
- split the scan across four cpus
- leverage more efficiently tuned memory (ensuring little tables & indexes stay in memory)
- use the best possible join
and probably complete the query in 1/60th the time that mysql would take. And that means that you could get better performance from db2/oracle on a $25,000 four-way smp than from mysql on a $2,000,000 32-way.
2. They fail to mention that Oracle now owns the most valuable parts of the MySQL solution (Innodb). Oracle has obviously purchased this component (which is how mysql supports transactions, pk/fk constraints, etc) in order to harm MySQL. Since there is no other viable replacement for Innodb the MySQL future is in serious doubt.
3. They probably weren't aware that MySQL is the least ANSI-SQL compliant database in the market. This is means that porting mysql code to another database is a royal pain in the butt compared to code supporting postgresql, db2, etc. Though, to be fair, it is getting much better.
LICENSING COSTS:
1. mysql isn't necessarily free, and can cost more than the commercial alternatives for small distributed commercial apps
2. db2 licensing only provided for DB2 Express- which is the low-cost 2-cpu model. That's often ok, hardly compares to Oracle standard edition also included. Also, I think they may have gotten their db2 costs mixed up between express & workgroup editions.
CONCLUSIONS & MISC
They mentioned some of the great mysql features like clustering and fault tolerance. Sorry, but mysql cluster solution is a separate telecom product that they purchased, that stores your data in memory - limiting your database size to however much memory you can afford. Not a practical solution for very many.
The mysql fault tolerance is really just replication. That's sad.
They mention one strength of mysql is their maximum database size of 64TB - which is nonsense, just because its internal registers and pointers can handle a theoretical maximum of 64TB doesn't mean that it would ever make sense to put more than 20 GB on it. DB2 & Oracle can go to 64TB, but today almost nobody is going beyond 10 TB just due to backup performance, cp
its not my sqls job to gaurentee data integrity (Score:4, Insightful)
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/constraint
" Before MySQL 5.0.2, MySQL is forgiving of illegal or improper data values and coerces them to legal values for data entry. In MySQL 5.0.2 and up, that remains the default behavior, but you can select more traditional treatment of bad values such that the server rejects them and aborts the statement in which they occur. This section describes the default (forgiving) behavior of MySQL, as well as the newer strict SQL mode and how it differs."
" MySQL allows you to store certain incorrect date values into DATE and DATETIME columns (such as '2000-02-31' or '2000-02-00'). The idea is that it's not the job of the SQL server to validate dates. If MySQL can store a date value and retrieve exactly the same value, MySQL stores it as given. If the date is totally wrong (outside the server's ability to store it), the special date value '0000-00-00' is stored in the column instead."
This is still a hobbiest toy.
Re:Correctness isn't negotiable (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, everyone who ever uses a database should know this already. Thats the whole purpose of transactions and consistancy.
>Good for you, you just wasted DB cycles because you want 'accurate' data.
vs. using DB cycles for inaccurate data?
"Yes the result is wrong but look how many cycles we saved!"
Re:Two things... (Score:4, Insightful)
oh, it can be *far* more expensive than that. The enterprise version is $40k/CPU, and that doesn't even including partitioning. To get Partitioning (and yes, you want it for any large database) you're looking at an extra $10k/CPU. And there are other extra charges as well. You can easily end up at $60k/CPU.
On the flip side, you can also get away with $5k/CPU if you know what you're doing, and if what you're doing is small. On the large side where you'd pay $60k/CPU you've probably also got $600k in hardware and a staff of at least a half-dozen. Guess what? The software & hardware almost always end up as a rounding-error compared to the labor costs. Doesn't really matter if the application is custom or commercial, they both seem to have about the same labor costs.
Re:Correctness isn't negotiable (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:its not my sqls job to gaurentee data integrity (Score:5, Insightful)
A "Review" based on check-off charts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break. This guy has reviewed databases on the basis of features, with, as far as I can tell, not a single real performance evaluation in different kinds of applications (OLTP, DSS, data warehouse), data volumes, or query complexity.
It gets better. In discussing Oracle, he explains: That is not to say the other databases serve up incorrect data but with some database engines when the workload is high, uncommitted data can be flushed from buffers to disk potentially creating a dirty read. MVRC also ensures that readers do not block writers and visa versa. HUH? I can't speak for EVERY database out there, but for most of them, you'd have to specifically set a "read uncommitted" isolation level to actually read dirty data. The majority of the databases would simply give a lock-and-block situation while the second reader waits for the writer to complete. Oracle's MVRC (and PostgreSQL's scheme) both prevent this lock-block situation. But, really, to say that this would potentially create a dirty read situation is just silly.
He also didn't speak of Oracle's new Express Edition. Yeah, it's limited to 1 CPU and has a cap on its data volume, but you get all of Oracle's core features (including PL/SQL) for FREE.
Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along.
Re:Crippled Versions (Score:4, Insightful)
Ohhmmm... They didn't compare performance at all.
Just did a basic install and initial setup then ran with the feature list and compared price/alowed configs.
The article basicaly confirms what I recomend (and you probebly do) anyway. I.e. If the Free product can do the job "corectly" (Catch all term for performance, reliability features etc...) there is no need for the $$$ databases.
If however you need to do something that only a comercial database will alow you have to get that database.
Most of my customers NEVER chose the databases they use. They chose a specific application then got that app vendor to spell out what database, OS and Hardware they recomend for this workload.
Re:like having my grandma rate sports cars (Score:3, Insightful)
I think your point 3 under future proofing (ANSI compliance) points out how slanted the review was.
On the spec page for MS SQL Server Express they said it had "Basic" ANSI support. Sounds kind of crappy, huh?
For MySQL, which doesn't even have basic support they wrote, "Extended subset of SQL-99, plus SQL-99 and SQL:2003 features." Sounds a lot better, doesn't it? It's not. It's a mis-mash or standard and non-standard bits versus Microsoft's basic support of the standard.
It's a sad state of affairs when Microsoft is more standards compliant than the "Editor's Choice".
Re:Two things... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:its not my sqls job to gaurentee data integrity (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there's MySQL in production environments. If the task at hand is the configuration data for your cacti SNMP graphers, MySQL is perfectly fine. But for real, transactable data? If you're young, keen and besotted by OSS, Postgres might help you not get sacked. Not MySQL. Outside the OSS space, you'll find a lot of people who say ``why do we spend all that money on Oracle, I can knock it up in Access''. It's the same problem: a lack of understanding of what really defines an enterprise DBMS.
ian
Good freakin god (Score:5, Insightful)
And Postgresql is far more robust and performs just as well.
What does mysql offer any more that the other OSS databases don't? Is it just that it's the M in LAMP? I'm so tired of hearing about Mysql, and all the Mysql drama, when it's just a shitty database that has a lot of mindshare.
Re:MySQL vs. Oracle install and use (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and there is an economy built around getting you to the point where you can understand what's going on.
Re:And where is Postgres? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me or was the author poignant and very descriptive when it came to the features set of MySQL while the features of other databases got a simple bleep in comparison?
I'm a big fan of MySQL but as a person who strives to be objective I find this comparison offensive and detrimental to the credibility of MySQL
Rigged test (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Those contracts (which usually go through some dunderhead in legal) are quite specific in what you can and can't do. For example: They may specify the number of seats, if and in what form the db may be connected to the internet, or even the business in which the product may be used for.
Those are very much legal contracts and have (even though you may call it an EULA) not a helluvalot to do with shrink-wrap or click-through EULAs.