MySQL is aiming for speedier development cycles than most database companies. The company is currently focusing on two products: MySQL versions 4.1 and 5.0. It released the binaries of 4.1 this week and plans to unveil a final version in about eight months. A final version 5.0 should be available about six months after that. Read the report at News.com.
MySQL Boasts Might Against Big Players
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
39 Comments
2003-04-11 3:59 pm
2003-04-11 5:17 pm
2003-04-11 5:41 pm
2003-04-11 5:52 pm
Anonymous
I use MySQL because … well … it was there. And I really liked how it worked. The only other DB I’ve ever used is Microsoft Access, so, can you blame me? 
A few posts ago, someone compared the cost of “deployment” of SapDB to Oracle. “Deployment” isn’t just purchasing the software, it’s a whole plethora of issues that sometimes can take many man-hours to sort out. And if sapdb breaks, how big is the support base?
I like MySQL because of its close affiliation with PHP (I don’t do complex databases at the moment, only dynamic web site style databases), ease of installation (“make install clean” on FreeBSD; of course, PostgreSQL probably is exactly the same), and ease of comprehension. It’s just SQL, pure and simple. Having never used PostgreSQL, I can’t say the other way – I’m sure it’s very similar in that respect – but MySQL (combined with phpMyAdmin) has always met my requirements.
One day I’ll take a look at PostgreSQL. Anyone know how much work it is to move MySQL PHP code to PostgreSQL PHP code? (in particular, mysql_fetch_object() … oh, how I love that function)
2003-04-11 7:17 pm
2003-04-11 8:00 pm
2003-04-12 1:36 am
2003-04-12 4:40 am
2003-04-12 11:59 am
2003-04-12 11:40 pm
2003-04-13 3:55 am
…in this software business. I have seen this video a thousand times and counting.
Nonetheless, go MySQL ! 🙂
MySQL may or may not ever be capable of going toe to toe with Oracle and DB2, but there’s quite a bit of marketspace in between that it could own quite handily. Like the article mentions, using Oracle to drive a small database is like using a nuke to swat a mosquito.
-Erwos
What does MySQL have over Postgres, except perhaps speed?
What Postgres has that MySQL does not (afaik):
# stored procedures
# stored procedures in different languages
# ability to create different languages
# inheritance
# speed with transactions (more mature transaction implementation)
# ability to survive larger number of connections
# wealth of data types
# views
# Triggers
# Rules
# Subselects in target lists
# NUMERIC type of arbitraty precision
# PL/pgSQL, PL/Tcl, PL/Perl, PL/Pythin
# Multiversioning
# User-definited data types, operators, and functions
# Write-ahead logging
# Partial indexes
# Functional indexes
# Rollbackable DDL (CREATE/DROP TABLE, etc.)
# Absolutely 100% free
# Referential integrity
*What does MySQL have over Postgres, except perhaps speed?
Availability? Momentum? A future?
All web hosting companies these days offer mysql. Its become a standard. And because its a standard, many more developers will learn and use it. And because of that mysql will be the choice of future programmers because they know it probably has the best chance of staying around longer.
>All web hosting companies these days offer mysql. Its become a standard.
Windows is also a standard. Yet, readers of this site try to sell us Linux.
In the same fashion, while mySQL is INDEED way more popular than PostgreSQL, doesn’t make mySQL a better product.
sapdb is as powerful as oracle. and it’s free.
enough said
MySQL has:
– an easy installer for windows;
– larger user (support) base;
– tie to php;
– more support from programming languages and book authors;
– a cool name;
Cant be beaten. Remember that MySQL is often used where one comercial DB could be used (NASA, Yahoo, etc). Those extra features that you list for PostgreSQL certainly arent so important to the people that use MySQL .
Even though those features when implemented by MySQL will attract even more users 🙂
Cheers
>> All web hosting companies these
>> days offer mysql. Its become a standard.
I wouldn’t go so far, because, believe it or not, more hosting clients use Access than use mysql.
But yeah, mySQL is good on the middle range. The license for SQL server is so expensive that many hosting companies don’t want to bother with it -unless they pirate it. What MS has done to oracle in the db market (drive prices down), mySQL will do all of them.
There is no comparison.. none whatsoever… MySQL is NOWHERE near where postgresql is… MySQL is an easy product that lets people who don’t even know what an ERD or a view is create a ‘database’.. which is why it’s popular..
it’s so inferior it isn’t even funny.
They mention that the number of people downloading mysql for windows compared to linux is 4 to 1. Are they including all of the people who download linux distributions with MySQL as part of the package? If they dont, then they did not count the 8 times I have downloaded MySQL this year for/with linux as opposed to the 1 time I downloaded it for windows.
I know (and like) ERDs and views, but I use MySQL. I guess it is probably because that is what my host has offered me. Does postgres have pretty much the features that SQL Server 2000 has?
That was a nice link I didn’t know SAP released a free database (but then again I’ve only been a user on SAP systems). OTOH reading the site it ain’t even close to Oracle. The types of features they are bragging about are features that aren’t even in the ballpark of cutting edge for Oracle. For example the configuration file for SAPdb has something like 30 options; the one for Oracle has 30 catagories of options (with dozens of options per catagory).
For all Oracle’s vaunted complexity, I’ve found it much harder to get started with Sapdb. It may just be the paucity of written documentation. I’ve not found anything really good on the web, and SAP’s documentation seems terribly badly organized. Additionally, the ONE third-party book on sapdb a) hasn’t yet been published and b) is written in German.
I’m probably going to give sapdb another shot — the price is right, it *looks* like it has a really good feature set, and it would make an attractive bullet point on the resume. But postgres is looking pretty attractive at the moment…
Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier
Too bad, I wish PostgreSQL was more widely available. All the cheap webhosts only offer mySQL support which is understandable of course but still. mySQL is good when you want to hack together a quick and dirty page with some database support. It’s fast for simple things and thats great but for a real, professional application it doesn’t even close to the required features.
Stored procedures. All database logic should be on the database, Faster, less traffic, more secure, and updates are dead simple. Distribute the new sprocs to your client and you dont even have to restart the application.
Triggers. Yeah they’re a bitch to debug but sometimes they’re irreplaceable. If another app modifies your data you MUST ensure that your data integrity will not be compromised. This is the way to do it.
Foreign keys. Btw I thought you could already do this in earlier mySQL versions. Anyway, also invaluable. Cascading deletes, updates, and more data integrity insurance.
Anyone know of a good, cheap postgreSQL host?
that postgresql doesn’t
– speed/performance (dun try to explain to me how to tune postgresql, i spent lots of time with both, mysql beats postgresql hands down, especially when it comes to inserts)
– embedded db (when u run an appliance, it’s 1 less factor to worry bout when u dun have to run a db server process)
– easy of use (installation/configuration/maintenance, all easier than postgresql)
granted, there are alot of features (as one reader mentioned above) that postgresql has over mysql, and they are very valid. so, choose the best tool for ur job…for me, mysql it is
It is easy to use for me. It just like Windows and Linux, many that wrote/say bad thing about Windows and praise Linux but the reality is that Windows just works and let it’s user to do their works.
The same goes to MySQL compare to others like PostgreSQL, MySQL just works and let me and other user do our works. So why do we need to switch to the other databases?
Read here for the short version: http://brainscraps.com/faq/pg_my.html
Is you really want to know what the diffrences are between
PostgresSQL and MySQL read these pages…
http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/db/dbs.html
http://phd.pp.ru/Software/SQL/PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL.html
http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3?page=2
http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705-res.php3
I prefer PostgresSQL but i do agree with some posters MySQL is extremly fast but as you will read in above linked pages, PostgresSQL can outpreform MySQL on certain terrain like
scaling and connections.
I think each product has it’s place. For a quick and cheap website you use MySQL, if you have lot of data use Postgresql. If you have tables with +2 millions of records (like we do) play safe and use Oracle.
“The types of features they are bragging about are features that aren’t even in the ballpark of cutting edge for Oracle”
this may be true but sapDB certainly has way more features than postgreSQL and MySQL combined. Postgres and Mysql do not support database views, at the point where each user can have their own database, like oracle (of course you can get around this by appending the user_name to every table that belongs to a user, but having your own, secure set of tables is a much sexier solution =) ).
Good thing about sapdb is that it does not take as long to set up as oracle, yah you dont have the billion configuration options like oracle, but it has enough to make a secure mission critical database. actually i did find their online documentation pretty thorough and have managed to get many things done with it. it would be nice to see more documentation though, you can never have enough. I use sapdb with PHP and apache, and it runs great.
and if you like phpmyadmin for mysql and postgres, sapdb comes with it’s own web-based administration tool that is top notch. sapdb also has NO LIMIT to table size, database size, etc… not like mysql, postgresql and MS SQL!!! and performance dramatically decrease with very large databases such like those DB’s i just mentioned.
it certainly would be nice if sapdb was more widely used and developed/integrated with other applications, but i think the power os sapdb may be overkill for more common database applications such as web forums, and guestbooks.
but for business applications, web-portals, and mission critical applications, sapdb is definetly the most promising rdbms. so if you want to build an enterprise able database, and do not have tons of money to spit out for oracle, go with sapdb. if you need support, sap does offer some solutions.
don’t get me wrong, i have tried mysql, then switched to postgresql (more features, more mature), but none of these had the power i needed. i could not afford db2, and refused to use MS SQL (i have linux servers). my friend told me sapdb released their DB to the public a few years ago, and i never turned back.
“and performance dramatically decrease with very large databases such like those DB’s i just mentioned. ”
i meant :
and performance DOES NOT dramatically decrease with very large databases such like those DB’s i just mentioned.
I think better is Interbase and it’s clones… as Firebird or Yaffil.
Firebird is multiplatform- for Windows, Linux, FreeBSD…
I think the word everyone is looking for is ACID. Which MySQL does not have!
Nothing can be consider a database unless you are ACID compliant PERIOD!
Now the fact that what most people do on the web with MySQL could just as easily be accomplished with Flat Files is a whole different story.
The ONLY reason why MySQL has received so much attention is because the average WEB, and let me clearify WEB developer only need a minimualistic way of storing data.
I’ve read Google runs MySQL too.
http://techupdate.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t492-s2120389-p2,00.html
“I was just at Google, and Google’s an all-MySQL shop. Why did they do it? Because they looked at DB2 and it was expensive and it didn’t offer any added value.”
I always wondered why MySQL is mentioned so many times more than PostgreSQL and SAPDb. Maybe a lot of people like it’s simplicity.
Hate to say it but, judging by the 4:1 ratio of downloads, MySql owes it’s success to Windows. Personally, I prefer PostgreSQL, how can people live without views, foreign keys and stored procedures? They’re basic necessities in RDBMS and without them maintaining a medium sized database is a pain.
PostgreSQL really loses out because it’s a PIG to install on Windows, you have to install cygwin then a load of common utils then blah blah blah. Five hours later it just might work so on Windows my recommendation is always MsSql.
Though if you’ve got a machine handy you can dump Linux on the Post is the only way for me.
Though where MySql could really win this fight, esp against M$, is by releasing a desktop version in replacement to Access. Access is utter crap when coming to doing anything more powerful than Insterts, updates and deletes, MySql in a self contained file would be awesome!
It’s a little old, so it may now be incorrect in places, but it provides good insight to why many people do not like MySQL.
http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql
It sounds like both of you agree that sapdb doesn’t have the same features. As for Oracle documentation it is not very good but there is lots of it and its cross referenced. A good way to get started is the DBA handbook. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072193743/qid=105007…
As for documentation on the web Oracle has a documentation CD (and yes it is full) and its free. I’d start with database concepts. No questions Oracle is a professional tool intended for DBAs and not people who set up a database quickly in the midst of something else.
Anyway take a look at http://otn.oracle.com/pls/db92/db92.homepage (may require registration to view I’m not sure).
It’s a little old, so it may now be incorrect in places, but it provides good insight to why many people do not like MySQL.