Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Jan 2010 22:41 UTC
Databases A petition launched in December by MySQL creator Michael 'Monty' Widenius to 'save' the open-source database from Oracle has quickly gained momentum, collecting nearly 17,000 signatures. Widenius on Monday submitted an initial batch of 14,174 signatures to the European Commission, which is conducting an antitrust review of Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, MySQL's current owner. The petition calls for authorities to block the merger unless Oracle agrees to one of three "solutions", including spinning off MySQL to a third party and releasing all past versions and subsequent editions for the next three years under the Apache 2.0 open-source license.
Thread beginning with comment 402546
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
computeruser
Member since:
2009-07-21

If your application needs to store data, it really shouldn't care how it's stored.

I used to hear this argument a lot back when MySQL had much less features than it does today, and it was wrong back then.
Most relational database systems are much more than simple data stores. And applications should care about how data is stored if they want efficient performance from a relational database.

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Most relational database systems are much more than simple data stores. And applications should care about how data is stored if they want efficient performance from a relational database.


I disagree. *Many* of them are more, *most* of them are just a place to store, query, and backup data, for which an RDBMS of any kind is overkill. Hence the whole NoSQL movement.

Reply Parent Score: 3

rycamor Member since:
2005-07-18

"Most relational database systems are much more than simple data stores. And applications should care about how data is stored if they want efficient performance from a relational database.


I disagree. *Many* of them are more, *most* of them are just a place to store, query, and backup data, for which an RDBMS of any kind is overkill. Hence the whole NoSQL movement.
"

MySQL has historically deviated from the standards so much that it is really hard to move from it. Curiously, moving from SQLite to PostgreSQL or Oracle is easier than moving from MySQL to either one. I think MySQL made their deficiencies into 'feature', in classic Microsoft style, and got lots of clueless PHP (and Java) programmers locked in to MySQL.

Reply Parent Score: 1

rycamor Member since:
2005-07-18

" If your application needs to store data, it really shouldn't care how it's stored.

I used to hear this argument a lot back when MySQL had much less features than it does today, and it was wrong back then.
Most relational database systems are much more than simple data stores. And applications should care about how data is stored if they want efficient performance from a relational database.
"

You are right that an application should care, but performance is not really the issue. Performance tweaking of databases should be an orthogonal concern to GOOD MANAGEMENT of your data. As an example, PostgreSQL lets you save an incredible amount of application code by letting you specify constraints, complex datatypes, and logical relationships declaratively, and it has many safeguards built in to ensure that what you thought you inserted is exactly what you DID insert. Any application with mission-critical data--financial, scientific, whatever--would do well to steer clear of MySQL.

Yes, I know they have InnoDB and ANSI standard mode now, but after having been forced to work with it for months lately, I am still not impressed. As a for-instance, you cannot use the results of a MySQL stored procedure IN a subquery or view. HUH!!?? It's as if they have missed half the point of relational databases.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This reminds me of my favorite clueless Monty quote ever: You don't need transactions, just use table locks.

Reply Parent Score: 2