“Many enterprise software users and vendors have made significant commitments to open source technologies. Projects such as the Linux operating system, Apache Web server, and the Perl programming language, have proven themselves as viable alternatives to equivalent commercial offerings. But what about the tools used to hold core information assets? Are open source databases ready for the enterprise?” Read the article at LinuxWorld.au.
Analysis: Open Source Databases
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Of all the open source databases, I think mySQL will kick the most ass. They are pretty well organised, and they have a structure that caters well to both free users and commercial interests. One thing I would like to see them do is do is:
1. Do a solid GUI interface .. maybe they can integrate and improve mysqlFront, and
2. Do a good Windows port. The current port for windows looks laughable, and that’s largely because of the interface.
Yet Another Stupid Open Source Article.
Why do those kind of articles always do the wrong comparisons when comparing Open Source alternatives to commercial ones??
Please! Do not compare MySQL with Oracle. As good as MySQL is, it serves another purpose. Compare PostgreSQL and Oracle and MS-SQL. Compare MySQL with them when the technical implementions is clearly stating that you don’t need stuff like transaction logging or stored procedures or triggers. Otherwise compaq MySQL with simpler db’s; you might even consider comparing it with MS-ACCESS for simple web sites! (Access IS widely used for this, just as MySQL is. MySQL is better of course 😉
What I want to read about: a real-life comparison of PostgreSQL and Oracle and MS-SQL, not just an ampty article like this one. And please, consider apps where a RDBMS is used in a Small Business (50-200 users?) environment for example. I don’t care about “very large systems”.
Sorry for reacting this negatively, I had to say it. (I work in SMB companies and get frustrated about never getting nice info on that level.) Guess I had a bad week 😉
I can never trust these articles when I find at least one thing wrong in almost all of them…
replication in postgres, i wish.
If you know anything about databases, you would clearly understand that MySQL doesn’t even qualify be even called a database since it doesn’t fullfil ACID requirements.
RE: mySQL will be the Most Successful
By Anonymous (IP: —.ev1.net) – Posted on 2003-07-04 21:29:19
If you know anything about databases, you would clearly understand that MySQL doesn’t even qualify be even called a database since it doesn’t fullfil ACID requirements.
Zzzzzz, work on the troll skills chap.
firebird, being interbase 6 compatible is the most ‘enterprise’ ready of all the open source dbs at present. interbase has been around for ages on various platforms, so there is much that can be leveraged with firebird.
what annoys me the most is that most hosting sites only run mysql. i havnt found any running say postgress or firebird. mysql is ubiquitious which imo is a shame.
pretty poor article. surprised to see a mention of SapDB, its imo an absolute dog, and the WORST of all the adabas systems. their codebase is absolutly horrid.
Anyone who knows anything about database theory realizes that ACID is only a small part of what is considered important in a database management system (it should be a given). And, in fact, MySQL can be run in ACID mode, if you choose the transaction-safe tables. It still doesn’t have about 10 important features I need all the time in my DBMS.
<peeve_mode>It’s just a small peeve of mine, but why do so many call a database management system a “database”? It’s like calling your hard drive a “file”. Or like calling your computer an operating system. Call it a DBMS, or a database server.</peeve_mode> Sorry…
But anyway, on to the article: I really loved Mickos’ statement: “Typically, open source DBMSs are superb when it comes to the core server technology, but they may still have some way to go when it comes to add-on products, third-party integration, and extensive professional services.”
What absolute gall… Lumping all open-source DBMSs together, and then saying that all they miss is some external functionality and a business model. No, I’m afraid MySQL misses much more than that, and it is much more “central”.
However the other contenders, PostgreSQL and Firebird, are getting close
.
Sure the big giant corporations will go with big giant databases from big giant database companies and pay big giant licenses and big giant consulting fees.
But for the rest of us — on real budgets — open source database systems are affordable. And they are typically far simpler than commercial databases. And they get the job done. And they can be tuned by the customer via recompiling with different options.
The rate of innovation in the big giant company databases is very low. And most of it is focused on winning benchmarks on giant servers. Or creating vastly complicated XML integrations so that consulting revenues can be increased.
More and more the world is sick of “low value” systems. And that is why the open source database systems are growing at such an amazing pace. The world is changing. The small adaptable databases — mammals — are on the scene. And they are hungry for dino meat.
Postgresql is a real database management system. As to some features, it has been ahead of the commercial competition. For example, at least until recently, Oracle did not have a boolean data type and Oracle, as far as I know, still does not have a date type that understands time zones. Postgresql does have these and many other features.
MySQL is only just barely a database management system and only then if one uses table types that support foreign key constraints and numerous other fundamental elements of a database management system worthy of the name.
None of these systems, open source or commercial, qualify as truly relational database management systems. This is because they are based on SQL, which is a horrible beast.
Who cares about the DBMS, I’m more interested in the tools available to work with them.
I’m currently looking at the Kompanies DataArchitect. For designing the database. Specifically ER Diagrams that reflect the relationships. Sorta like what Visio can do. Kivio cannot do it and I cannot get dia to do it either.
http://www.thekompany.com/products/dataarchitect/
I’m also interested in Rekall which is a frontend for various DBMS
http://www.thekompany.com/products/rekall/
Does anyon know of any other good DBMS tools for Linux?
Richard, take a look at this if you are interested in commercial apps:
http://www.webyog.com/sqlyog/index.html
They say a Linux port is in the works.
“None of these systems, open source or commercial, qualify as truly relational database management systems. This is because they are based on SQL, which is a horrible beast.”
Can you give examples of truly relational database management systems? What do they use in place of SQL?
Interbase is simple, tiny and the best open-source database, with a graphical console (IBCONSOLE).
“None of these systems, open source or commercial, qualify as truly relational database management systems. This is because they are based on SQL, which is a horrible beast.”
Can you give examples of truly relational database management systems? What do they use in place of SQL?
It is true that SQL [i]by definition is not completely relational. In fact, as Fabian Pascal of http://www.dbdebunk.com says, in the ANSI SQL specifications there is not one mention of the word “relational” and in fact that this was a conscious decision.
Most of the serious relational theory writers, such as C.J. Date argue that SQL is badly designed for true set-oriented and predicate logic manipulation of data, and he proposes a new language, which he has called Relational D. This is for a number of reasons which can best be understood by reading his books, or visiting his site: http://www.thethirdmanifesto.com/
Anyway, at the moment there is only one commercial product that incorporates the D language: Dataphor, by Alphora. But there are a few open-source attempts, such as http://duro.sourceforge.net/
Historically, there have been a few other non-SQL relational systems, such as Ingres, and IBM’s BS12, but SQL won as the de facto standard, for whatever reason. Fortunately, many developers and IT thinkers are starting to question this, particularly because SQL has turned into a giant behemoth, incorporating many non-relational ideas. The current SQL-3 spec is 1200 pages, I believe.
I like the MySql bashing.. its always entertaining. Its very easy to get on a high horse when dealing with databases, but you have to look at what 90% of people actually use in a database server. If you look at a typical database, you can *hope* to see indexes.. perhaps some views.. and *maybe* a stored procedure. Don’t frighten people with triggers now..
I’m not saying thats good. And I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be using these features, if it would help them. But the average database around there is probably not the best constructed system around. Half the time some developer throws it together who wouldn’t know a trigger if it smacked him/her in the face. But frequently these are workgroup databases.. intranet databases.. small-medium web site databases.. and thats fine. I repeat.. thats fine. They don’t need the complexity of all of that stuff. They don’t need two-phase commits, clustering, and everything else.
What do they need? A RDBMS that is very easy to manage. Toss Oracle their way and watch their head explode, or watch the worst database installation that you have seen in a while. Its *hard* stuff.
So, sure there are lots of databases around.. and its easy to be a DB snob, but MySQL and its friends are quite good at storing data, providing a good feature set, good interfaces, and have lots of tools to make it easy to do things.
I’ve used many of these other databases.. heck, I just finished one Oracle-based project, but we didn’t use more than basic DB functions in that, due to the application requirements. Why pay for the oracle licenses, machine overhead, and administrative costs in maintaining it? I like Postgresql, though the JDBC drivers have occasionally been wanting. Heck, I even like Hypersonic, since it fits an interesting niche. Firebird, SAPDB, and others are great at many things too.
So cut some databases some slack and try recommending that people find what *best fits there overall needs*, and not just some esoteric RDBMS feature set list.
what annoys me the most is that most hosting sites only run mysql. i havnt found any running say postgress or firebird. mysql is ubiquitious which imo is a shame.
yes, i know. this is a pretty frustrating situation.
regarding postgresql, quite a few provide it if you look around. i believe either cpanel or ensim supports postgresql. at least looking for postgresql is easier/cheaper than looking for ms access/sql server.
regarding firebird, as a webhost i can tell you, i’ve been having difficulty setting up firebird 1.x to be “secure” in a multiuser environment. last time i checked, the file permissions in the default rpm’s are horrible security-wise, not to mention issues in setting per-user/db quota or disallowing some users from being able to create arbitrary db files. perhaps we should wait for fb 2.0.
oh, one more thing. i remember that cobalt used to offer firebird/interbase. but cobalt now seems to be dwindling in popularity compared to ensim/plesk/cpanel.
until more more hosting companies provide access to postgres or firebird then app support (eg: lots of the php apps) wont go beyond mysql, and more people wont get the chance to learn it. but without demand, hosting companies wont provide it.
its a chicken and egg situation.