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."
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's exactly like comparing crippleware with freeware.
Whose problem is it if the freeware is the better product?
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe not in Australia (Score:5, Interesting)
So, how much did MySQL AB pay for this? (Score:5, Interesting)
And of course, absolutely no mention of stability, reliability, bugs, robustness, etc... what a suprise, considering that both MSSQL and MySQL are arguably far behind in those areas.
Where are the test cases? Where is the testing methodology? How about some explanation of particular cases where one solution didn't compare with the others, or where one solution excelled? This 'labs test' reads more like a sales pitch than anything resembling an actual test.
Laughable! (Score:2, Interesting)
There are all kinds of different DBs to fill different needs. Use whatever works for your scenario... MySQL is about the last one I'd use in most cases. And again, not including PostgreSQL?
Its good enough for Google! (Score:3, Interesting)
Australia now has DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
IIRC, EULAs are considered void in Australia because it's a contract occuring after the monetary transaction. After you paid, there is no way additional conditions can be added.
When you buy downloadable software, you are given the chance to review the EULA before you enter your payment information. Should this ruling against EULAs stand up in court, I can see Amazon or foreign counterparts doing the same for boxed software under heavy pressure from major BSA publishers.
"But what about retail sales in person?" The United States has enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and has imposed identical conditions on Australia through a recent un-Free Trade Agreement. Under the DMCA, decrypting a copyrighted work is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. This means that a retail software transaction can now be decomposed into two separate offer-acceptance-consideration sequences: The first is a regular sale, where money is traded for a box containing a disc. The second is a license or licence to decrypt the installer, where your rights are traded for decryption during the install process. The disc is useful only as a toy until you enter into this second contract.
Even if this DMCA-based theory doesn't hold water, nothing stops a publisher from requiring all authorized retailers to make a working Internet terminal available to customers and putting a conspicuous notice on the packaging: "This sale is subject to your acceptance of terms and conditions displayed at http://eula.microsoft.com/windows/xp". In fact, this method has been upheld in a U.S. Court of Appeals [corante.com].
Re:So, how much did MySQL AB pay for this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't usually get involved in these discussions, because it's just armchair politics. But look -- I'm an employee for a highly successful company [zappos.com] built on top of MySQL, and it works great. Hundreds of tables, many with hundreds of millions of rows. Our primary DB averages over 1200 queries per second (yes, that's an average over several months). 15 percent of those are writes. Our system is stable. MySQL is a solid database, end of story.
Cheers.
Re:MySQL vs. Oracle install and use (Score:2, Interesting)
Being beginner-friendly like MySQL can IMO promote false sense of security. I have also done my share of lightweight web development and met a lot of people who don't have a clue about MySQL's weaknesses.
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
PostgreSQL has its own problems. I have a simple table, with a couple bigint columns. Consider these two statements:
1. select * from tbl where id = 123;
2. select * from tbl where id = '123';
The second is nearly three orders of magnitude faster.
People have complained about this annoying gotcha for years.
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
To be honest I think feature wise MS SQL Server beats the shit out of MySQL. And that the "old" 2000 version, not the new 2005 which had quite a few improvements.
The only limitation in these "express editions" is how large the DB can be, how much ram it will utilize and how many CPUs it will run on. 4GB dbs, 2 GB ram and 1 CPU iirc. Feature and performance-wise on that same (limited) hardware it will perform as good as the commercial version.
As for large databases I woulnd't trust MySQL at all. It's a good light database, but I don't know how well it would hold up under serious load. Yes it has improved, but it hasn't even caught up with the features SQL Server 2000 had when it was released. Indexed Views coming anytime soon? As for PostgreSql I wouldn't know. I haven't tried that.
I agree with those other people in this thread who think this comparison is silly. If it should be meaningful in any way there should be more DBs and there should be actual benchmarks.
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:1, Interesting)
On mysql do this for example:
create table T (a int, b int)
;
insert into T values(1, 2);
;
update T set a=b, b=a
;
What is the result? Well, on most REAL database the values whould be swapped: A=2, B=1.
On MySQL unfortunately the result is: A=2, B=2.
That bug has been present for a long time and is still there in 5.0.
Peace,
Matt
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill
Re:Rigged test (Score:2, Interesting)
The three main usage scenarios for SQL Server Express are:
----
Nonprofessional developers building Web applications
ISVs redistributing SQL Server Express as a low-end server or client data store
Hobbyists building basic client/server applications
----
Comparing a product that makes no claim to handling the test scenario with one that is "Enterprise grade" simply because both are free is asinine.
MySQL claims to make an enterprise grade database. If you want to compare it with other companies then do so with those companies enterprise grade databases. Compare it with DB2, Oracle 10g or SQL 2005.
I'll tell ya', I thought the mainstream media was bad, but after reading hundreds of tech news stories over the last few months, I can't believe these people call themselves journalists.
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
*cough* What transaction isolation level? MySQL hasn't had transactions for YEARS. Once it finally got them, it turned out they were being faked anyway. A real database works correctly BECAUSE it has proper transaction isolation.
Re:Its good enough for Google! (Score:3, Interesting)
Trying to port a ridiculous application like this to 'real' database (I'm assuming Oracle) is going to be painful at the best - MySQL is not standards compliant in any way, it doesn't have a real data dictionary (ever try to figure out how to query for FKEY constraints in MySQL? Serious pain there).
Re:Good freakin god (Score:5, Interesting)
And SQLite is better? Because it's ACID? HA! HA HA HA HA HA! GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! That's the only buzzword it IS compliant with. Look at this:
Q: SQLite lets me insert a string into a database column of type integer!
A: This is a feature, not a bug. SQLite does not enforce data type constraints. [emphasis added]
and this:
Q: What is the maximum size of a VARCHAR in SQLite?
A: SQLite does not enforce the length of a VARCHAR. You can declare a VARCHAR(10) and SQLite will be happy to let you put 500 characters in it. And it will keep all 500 characters intact - it never truncates.
and this:
Q: Does SQLite support a BLOB type?
A: SQLite versions 3.0 and leter let you puts BLOB data into any column, even columns that are declared to hold some other type.
all this and more can be seen at http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html [sqlite.org]
"And Postgresql is far more robust and performs just as well."
And only recently ran natively under Windows. Sorry, but when you're in a company with 33k employees and a substantial IT department, you don't always get to pick your platform. MySQL was there, it worked, and it continues to do so. Why would I switch?
Let me make the required car analogy: a semi is several orders of magnitude more powerful than a 2WD pickup truck. A semi can haul more, and haul more further, and haul big loads more efficiently, and with a sleeper cab and two drivers can operate 24/7, and you can get refrigerated units to move food, etc etc etc. Why, then, are there millions of 2WD pickups sold? Are they just "shitty vehicles with lots of mindshare"? NO! It's because 99.9% of the population just wants to move a couch or go to Home Depot or something. Maybe it'll take a few trips to help a friend move, but even that takes fewer hours than getting a class-whatever license, plus pickups are easier to maneuver and park in apartment complex parking lots and residential neighborhoods, etc etc etc.
I'm not saying MySQL is better than everythinhg else. The fact is, databases and computers are SO capable now that even the WORST in the field is STILL more than 99% of people need. In other words, MySQL is Just Fine.
PS: MySQL is ACID when used with InnoDB tables which came out about 3 years ago. [google.com] Time to update your troll.
Re:I like MySQL, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill