Slashdot Log In
Oracle Lines Up Unbreakable MySQL
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:10 PM
from the the-swirling-of-large-and-small dept.
from the the-swirling-of-large-and-small dept.
munchola writes "MySQL CEO, Marten Mickos, has revealed to CBRonline that Oracle has threatened to provide support for MySQL and is already distributing the open source database. "They have hinted to us that they will," said Mickos, indicating that the database giant is planning to repeat its October 2006 Unbreakable Linux plan, which saw it undercut Red Hat with enterprise Linux support. Despite the competitive threat, Mickos is unmoved. "I hope they do that," he said, noting that it would be seen as an endorsement of the open source database.""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Mikos is right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Definitely a win-win situation for mySQL, because they get press and legitimacy without losing too much business. The "unbreakable linux" deal probably hurt RedHat a hell of a lot more than this will hurt mySQL.
I hope they do it for PostgreSQL, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I hope they do it for PostgreSQL, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you hit the limitations with MySQL, need a feature it doesn't support, etc, Oracle can point you to a sales rep. There are far less limitations with PostgreSQL. It wouldn't make as much business sense to encourage it's use.
Parent
Re:I hope they do it for PostgreSQL, too. (Score:4, Informative)
As is MySQL [mysql.com].
has mature support for just about everything
It lacks anlaytic functions [oracle.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This behavior is perfectly valid. Oracle does the same thing. This is a feature: you, the user, can choose to ROLLBACK or continue on error. Would you want a typo to abort a transaction during interactive use?
Re:I hope they do it for PostgreSQL, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it. Unlike MySQL, PostgreSQL is much more of a direct competitor to Oracle. In fact, I've converted PG databases to Oracle with ease. (Why did I do this? The client wanted Oracle, so I ported our PG product to it.) The translation of some rather intensive PL/pgSQL to PL/SQL was almost trivial, with a translator script I wrote in a day. The resemblance is so close that if I didn't know better (and maybe I don't), I would almost say PG "borrowed" some of its syntax from Oracle. Going back would be a little harder if some of the more obscure Oracle PL/SQL features were used, but probably not rocket science for most applications. There are other interesting resemblances - you can see very meticulous, almost obsessive Oracle emulation in the behavior of date/time stuff (search the PG source code for "Oracle" - beautifully commented stuff is in there).
With MySQL on the other hand, even without getting into an ACID problems discussion (some of which have been improved in recent releases), has a very poor feature overlap with Oracle, not a minor one being not having anything like PL/SQL.
I guess the thing that bothers me personally about this is that it is publicity for MySQL, subconsciously encouraging more people to adopt it over the (IMHO) much better PostgreSQL. I think that it will poison your mind to learn DB theory from MySQL. :) But
that is just my personal view and I encourage alternate viewpoints.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The same reasons being most likely that by "supporting" MySQL or PostgreSQL they are effectively suffocating the companies who continue to develop of those databases and probably poaching a few sales too. Eventually those other companies might go down the tubes or at least suffer financially and Oracle can turn around and claim "see you can't trust open source, buy Oracle".
I wonder why MS doesn't try the same thing - push out Microsoft Linux, complete with a free Vista / Windows runtime i
Re:Mikos is right. (Score:5, Interesting)
> the primary benefit for Oracle is that they'll be able to offer bundled support with people who already have Oracle support and want the convenience of dealing with one company for all their support needs
This is not a trivial point.
Brand recognition goes a long way when a company is shopping for support. Companies that already pay for Oracle support might be very willing to tack-on MySQL support from them, rather than to establish a new relationship with MySQL.
Also, since Oracle will be distributing the MySQL database themselves, the unsuspecting middle-manager might think that "MySQL" is just another Oracle offering, or component of their architecture. It's the old "bundled with" implies "created by" heuristic.
Parent
Re:Mikos isn't right. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a guess, but I'll go out on a limb and state that any hopes MySQL had in wooing really pricey billable hour customers is evaporating. Even if I'm wrong, the mood at MySQL has probably been a little less happy when they figured out Oracle was going after the top of the consulting/support dollars.
There's still *so* much they have to offer for businesses willing to pay. They just need to keep at it and understand that Oracle won't be th
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest that the parent is ignorant and/or trolling.
"Threatening" to support a product? (Score:3, Funny)
Typical support call (Score:4, Funny)
Oracle: MySQLs XYZ is crap - you better buy a real DBMS. As a support customer we can offer you Oracle 10g Enterprise at a reasonable prize!
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle makes it's money primarily by selling support and service, not by selling licenses, so while they may try to sell you a license, they're not going to go out of their way to snag an itty-bitty fish that's not going to be able to afford support.
And frankly, if you're big enough to afford support, you probably DO need Oracle...mySQL is a good tool, but I'd be really hesitant about setting up a big accounting system on mySQL.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Typical support call (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen a number of shops with a situation like this:
Customer: "We're a small shop. We need an RDMBS. We can't afford a DBA. The sales rep said the Oracle Installer is easy to use, and I can install Oracle on my own.
But to install the Oracle *client* , I need to download 3 ISOs, install Xwindows on the server, tunnel Xwindows over SSH. While installing the Oracle Server, the installer crashed out halfway through due to some Java bug. When I tried the installer a second time, the installer refuses to proceed and says that this database already exists.
I called your support line urgently for help, and was transferred not once, not twice but SIX times before they threw my case over over to some department called 'Customer Care' because of a problem with my 'entitlement'. This is my first time calling Oracle Support, so forgive me if I don't understand your byzantine phone support.
I opened this case last Thursday. Today is Tuesday, and I only just heard back from the entitlement department--- I called Saturday, but was told I had to call back Monday (I thought I said this was urgent)--- they finally got back to me with the proper license.
Now that I have the license, can someone please help me with the problem I ran into 5 days ago?
While I was waiting for this problem, my friend came over, installed MySQL in 5 minutes, and created a basic data model in 30 minutes. I can do basic data changes with phpMyAdmin. THIS is what I need. Please tell me why I need to spend $10K on some Oracle 10g Support Licenses?"
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I know plenty of people who have installed Oracle by themselves, with 10g its pretty simple. I've installed Oracle on many systems and i've never had to do what you've described.
Sounds like you need to spend money on support because your going to need it sooner or later... You may want to be a bit proactive and go buy some support from mysql right now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having never done web dev before I went with the biggest target, MySQL backend with apache/php front, literally took me 5 minutes to download and install MySQL with its nice developer tools, and maybe another 10 minutes to have a reasonable understanding of how those tools work.
Now, I've never in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Installing the Instant Client [oracle.com] involves merely unzipping a file.
Oracle distributing MySQL? (Score:3, Insightful)
The rest of us can push MySQL saying "this is what Oracle recommends, just free".
(*) I just pulled that number from clear air.
Re:Oracle distributing MySQL? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oracle distributing MySQL? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks everyone for the interesting comments. It's a good discussion and I think there have been some good points made. I see Oracle and MySQL serving two distinct markets, so in most cases we are not competitors.
One point of clarification: I never said that Oracle has threatened MySQL. (I think this may have been the writer's editorial comment.) Instead, I view it as a positive thing that Oracle distributes MySQL. I have often suggested that Oracle should distribute MySQL and I've made the same suggestion to Microsoft. Perhaps Oracle, Microsoft or IBM will provide support for MySQL and that could be good for open source in general. (And note that Red Hat, HP and others already do so.)
If people want to buy support for MySQL from Oracle, that's great. And of course, if they want to buy it from us, we are fine with that also.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Parent
Not support! (Score:2, Informative)
Really though, I think people will see it as an endorsement (and more so, people might think that Oracle is losing faith in its flagship product). It's one thing to provide support for Linux, but MySQL is directly competing with Oracle (to a degree). I really don't know what message they're trying to send here, but if it's that people should buy Oracle, I really don't see how this will help.
Anyway, competition is good. If Oracle thinks it can
Oracle (Score:5, Informative)
As for Oracle support, it was the main thing we looked forward to at first (this was the mid-90's); but it, too, got worse over time. I would not trust Oracle to properly support MySQL, especially since they have no motivation to push it, and they are not the developers (and in fact are in competition with them).
Re:Oracle (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Government agency your company works for pays $90 million for Oracle licenses
2. Larry Ellison gives your congressman a nice campaign contribution
3. Government agency happily hands over license certificates by the wheelbarrow load to show that they were needed in the first place
Never once had to deal with a sales rep.
Parent
Upgrade Pathing (Score:4, Insightful)
It will lower their costs (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt very much that most DBAs that have a support contract with Oracle and move to MySQL will say "OK, now we don't need that contract anymore". They will keep it as insurance for who knows if MySQL will work as expected? They feel they may need to move back to Oracle in the future. After all, if they had felt at ease with MySQL to begin with, they wouldn't need Oracle to tell them how good it is.
"Unbreakable" Linux... (Score:2)
support? (Score:2)
I can provide Oracle support on a two-headed coin: Side A - you must have a typo somewhere; Side B - you'll need to find a work-around.
And, of course there'll be another user forum of everyone asking for the same help that you are (with very few useful answers).
Welcome MySQL Users! (Score:2, Funny)
. . . to the Nine Circles of Oracle Support Hell.
From the C_Kode PR Department: V.U.M (Score:4, Funny)
Benefits of combining Oracle and MySql (Score:2, Interesting)
My current client is a large insurance company. (More than $7 billion dollars of policies a year underwritten by a staff of more than 1,200 people.)
We have lots of Oracle, SQL/Server, and MS/Access applications all over the place. The Oracle data is generally available to everyone. We have more than 50 analysts who use a combination of Hyperion (formerly Brio) and SAS
Re:Oracle Sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Whereas MySQL would silently insert a default value.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oracle Sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Serious question: why is Oracle considered so much better that SQL Server?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm rather fond of their Analytic Functions [orafaq.com], which allow for convenient queries against other table rows. For example, given a table of time-stamped log entries you can write a query to "Show me the time intervals between successive log entries."
I'm hoping these will show up in Postgresql soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Question: Performance-wise, is this the equivalent of using SQL subqueries? Or is there some type of database optimization that gives it a performance advantage?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>Serious question: why is Oracle considered so much better that SQL Server?"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, the things we had to do to make this work are basically: use stored procedures.
Now I work with a large breakdown company that uses Oracle, and we've seen barely a difference. Oracle is just as performant, and
And you still don't have much of an answer (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH, SQL Server is extremely simple to install and administer for low volume environments. DTS Provides a nice simple transport mechanism. Enterprise manager, while kludgy, is relatively intuitive.
For fine tuning, Oracle provides finer control - but that's not to say that SQL doesn't provide a lot of control over DB Tuning features.
Then there are the little things that crop up over experienced usage - like the first time you try to take a MS SQL backup from one machine to another and end up perplexed for an hour. Or when you're 6 gig backup file won't copy from one machine to another without 3rd party software (really a windows issue, not SQL Specific). Or when you discover that you can't replicate certain tables or columns, can't copy blobs using sql scripts, etc. Things like that.
A lot of applications treat the database as a storage engine and leave platform specific performance enhancements by the wayside in favor of database-agnostity. Because of this, MySQL is much closer to being a legitimate competitor than you would think. People talk about "ACID Compliance", but really most applications don't need ACID Compliance and just because you can't do something one particular way doesn't mean it can't be done.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I know that there are big database features in Oracle that are way over my head and I can't go into. S
writers don't block readers, nor readers writers (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft SQL Server (which is Sybase in diguise) has an in-memory lock structure; if your transaction acquires too many row locks, your locks are escalated (to page locks or table locks). While these rows are locked, readers are blocked.
Because of this, your are encouraged to keep your SQL Server transactions as short as possible. By default, isql DML commits after every statement, and you must use a BEGIN TRANSACTION/COMMIT if this is not what you want.
Oracle does not use a memory structure for row lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Oracle's database supposed to be unbreaka (Score:4, Informative)
I doubt MySQL is ever going to have the sort of PL/SQL support Oracle does, and you're not likely to see things like enterprise-class clustering, data partitioning, replication, and so forth. If you added all that to MySQL, it'd wind up just like Oracle - big, complex, and expensive. They occupy opposite ends of the spectrum.
And for what it's worth, I've got an Oracle database on a modest single-processor AMD server with a single hard drive handling about 20 inserts per second with R-tree spatial indexing and it keeps up just fine, with a bit of tuning. Given a real server with multiple drives I'd be able to optimize things much better, but it's just a testbed.
Comparing MySQL to Oracle is a little like comparing a high-performance motorcycle to an M1A2 tank. They'll both get you from point A to point B, but with different levels of cost and safety.
Parent
Re:Isn't Oracle's database supposed to be unbreaka (Score:4, Insightful)
And that heaven for that! Look, most of us want a database system we can use for our own limited but still important purposes. We don't need a lot of enterprise-level crud bogging us down. I'd never think of using MySQL on the large scale, but then that's what I have Oracle for. Oracle is over-muscled for a lot of simple stuff; MySQL is better for a medium-weight application.
And as an aside, the reason that Oracle is doing this is to get their name in the small-to-middle size market. Oracle's been dominating larger firms for years now, but that means there's little room for growth. If they can try to reach smaller markets and spread their name around, when some of these smaller companies outgrow their MySQL set-ups, Oracle will be ready to step in with their enterprise apps.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
> own limited but still important purposes. We don't need a
> lot of enterprise-level crud bogging us down.
So true. I'm running a small database (only 20 million records) [blogs.com], and PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] is more than sufficient. We use it in production, too [getindi.com], and it's quite solid.
Maybe someday when we get up to 100 TB or so we'll think about something else, but by then PostgreSQL will probably be capable of handling that load as well...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed we view MySQL competing in different markets from the legacy closed source databases. We have focused on new applications, often web-based systems, ecommerce, reporting, analysis and so on, rather than traditional ERP applications. There are many features that DB2 and Oracle have of which they are very proud. And we are also proud *not* to have all of the complexity of those features. Our focus is not on features, but on reliability, ease of use and performance.
Charles Phillips of Orac
Oracle aquired the MySQL backend not PostGresql (Score:3, Informative)
No, it was the innodb for MySQL that Oracle acquired, this has nothing to do with PostGresQL. Unlike MySQL PostgresQL has always had attomic commits.