![Data Storage Data Storage](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/storage_64.png)
SAP and MySQL Join Forces 230
An anonymous reader writes "Heise Online is reporting that SAP and MySQL are going to cooperate (German article, you may want to use Google's translation). Short summary: MySQL and SAP are going to develop a new database server. 'The primary responsibility for the development and product management is with MySQL' says SAP spokesperson Karl-Heinz Hess. Until the new database is released, SAP will continue to develop its own free database system SAP DB, however it will now use the MySQL brand name." On a related note, IBM is introducing a low-end version of DB2.
SAP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SAP? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SAP? - resume (Score:5, Insightful)
One of my colleagues has this theory that packages with (very) high entry costs - such as SAP - attract higher pay for experience than those with low/zero entry cost - such as most open source stuff and MySQL, which anyone and their dog can download for free & run on a $100 Linux box.
Kind of, but there's a lock-in there, too (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically, if you want to work in it, you have to keep working in it. That is somewhat true in other fields, but I think stuff like SAP is exceptional that way--very closed. Hard to get into, and hard to get back into if you've been out.
Mind you this is not because you can't just jump in and pick right back up--you can. but there's a whole mentality surrounding all the work that says "sorry, you can't come back in". So something along those lines.
Re:Kind of, but there's a lock-in there, too (Score:2)
As somebody who has been working in the SAP field for the last 5 years, all I can say is AMEN!
It is a really tough field to break into because of this mindset problem. (See my ID.)
I have recently moved into the CRM module and have found this work very stimulating. All this while making fai
Re:SAP? - resume (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SAP? - resume (Score:5, Insightful)
But these issues aren't relevant to this thread.
The discussion is not about the "huge, complex application," R/3, it is about the database.
And in the context of R/3, the database is essentially an embedded component, a tiny part of the overall system, and one that isn't used with immense sophistication. Most big R/3 installs use Oracle, but, for the most part, not in a terribly sophisticated way. There is little if any use of "advanced stuff" like foreign keys, triggers, or stored procedures; the DBMS is used as a "data store," and isn't expected to be terribly smart.
There lies an interesting connection; that description historically describes MySQL fairly well, as a relatively unsophisticated data store. Make MySQL more robust and it might well make a nice "cheap" data store for R/3 . (Mind you, commercial licenses for MySQL cost hundreds of dollars more, per CPU, than, say, PostgreSQL...)
But the "resume connection" certainly doesn't appear to be the point...
My Literacy (or lack thereof). (Score:2)
Re:SAP? (Score:2)
Apart from the Oracle system tables emulation what other features does SAPDB have over Postgres? Does it have its own PL/SQL-like language? Are there benchmarks?
I must say that if the next version of MySQL has the industrial-strength-databaseness of SAPDB and the ease of use of MySQL, that's good news for everyone. I hope it will also have the multi-ver
Re:SAP? (Score:2)
Re:SAP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't SAP the database formerly known as [Adabas]?
Kind of; IIRC, it is a fork of Adabas.
What exactly is MySQL contributing to this?
My guess is that the new database will be much easier to set up and manage than SAPDB in its current form. Have you ever tried installing it from source? Saying that it is nearly impossible to get it to compile is an understatement. Setting up a MySQL database is absolutely trivial by comparison, which is (IMHO) the primary reason for its popularity. I'd love to use SAPDB, but I don't have time to deal with the frustration that its installation involves; any improvement in that area would be a welcome change.
Why Join Indeed. (Score:5, Interesting)
The code base is exceedingly obscure, and having the MySQL folk do some work on it may relieve that problem somewhat.
SAP-DB has fairly mature answers for all those deficiencies.
In that interim, "mindshare competitors" such as PostgreSQL and Firebird ("the database, not the web browser" :-)) aren't likely to stand still, so it seems likely to me that a major result will be for them to get a lot more popular.
Re:Why Join Indeed. (Score:2)
I use PostgreSQL in contexts where we don't have root access on colocated hardware, which mandates that we have to be able to compile it (and various other software) to run as we see fit. That is the sort of thing I need , your opinions of who's a nutter notwithstanding.
And the issue isn't simply that SAP-DB is tough to compile; it is also troublesome that the code base
Re:SAP? (Score:4, Informative)
SAP isn't a software package, either (Score:2)
It is NOT "a software package;" the "collection of programs" you are alluding to is not called "SAP," but rather R/3 . Recently, they have also been hawking a sort of "distribution" under the name MySAP, but that does not change that "SAP" is the name of the company.
As to the "runs best on Oracle," I don't think one can readily distinguish whether there is actually any technical merit to that or whether it's a marketing ploy that SAP, Oracle, and consultants all agree
So does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
SAP and MySQL - The Difference is in the Name! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SAP and MySQL - The Difference is in the Name! (Score:3, Funny)
It's MySQL, and not YourSQL. Everyone loves owning things and calling them theirs
Ohh.. so that's why Windows owns the desktop, because of the My Computer icon. All this time I thought it was because of robust coding and rock solid performance.
Re:SAP and MySQL - The Difference is in the Name! (Score:2)
P.S. I wonder why SleepyCat is not the most popular database? Oh, I know - the boss afraids to leak any evidence of his child porns. Again, that's right - it's all about the name!
Re:SAP and MySQL - The Difference is in the Name! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:SAP and MySQL - The Difference is in the Name! (Score:2, Informative)
"..the INGRES project at U.C. Berkeley. The INGRES project had a language called QUEL. They started a company that implemented QUEL. QUEL fought SQL tooth-and-nail, and explained how QUEL was better than SQL in many different ways, and in fact it is better at doing aggregates. There are lots of areas where QUEL is better."
"..Tom Price: Although the first code they [Ingress] shipped was SQL on top of QUEL
Mike
Re:SAP and MySQL - The Difference is in the Name! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/What-is.html
The official way to pronounce MySQL is ``My Ess Que Ell'' (not ``my sequel''), but we don't mind if you pronounce it as ``my sequel'' or in some other localised way.
but hey, who reads the docs anyway, not a MySQL guru like you eh?
Re:SAP and MySQL - The Difference is in the Name! (Score:2)
Actuality (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, for open-source or largely community developed projects, it's easy for the leaders to announce a merger or roadplan, but a whole 'nother game when it comes to getting the volunteer coders to actually do it; switching codebases or doing the grunt work of merges isn't the kind of this most hackers find sexy or appealing.
Point being, how much of this merger is something that's actually going to happen, how much is just a transfer of resources (versus merging of code), and so on?
Re:Actuality (Score:3, Insightful)
"MySQL AB employs about 70 staff around the globe, and thousands more contribute to the success of MySQL by testing the software, integrating it into other software products, and writing about it."
There are actually a fair whack of people at MySQL and SAP that are paid to do this. Like most of the major open source projects, a fair amount of the programming is done by people whose job it is. The myth of people doing it for free is just that. A myth. There are people who write code a
Re:Actuality (Score:2)
Re:Actuality (Score:2)
If a company is "doing it for free" and a company consists of people, then you have people doing it for free.
Where's the myth?
Re:Actuality (Score:5, Funny)
Timeframe (Score:2)
I think both companies are well aware of the potential problems. The article talks about a timeframe of several years, so don't expect anything to be released within a few months.
Lets hope they dont call it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lets hope they dont call it (Score:5, Funny)
MyZilla? (Score:2)
Re:Lets hope they dont call it (Score:2)
MyGreSQL (Score:2)
Re:Lets hope they dont call it (Score:3, Funny)
Another recursive acronym.....
predicting the future.... (Score:5, Funny)
L.Ellison is heard saying: "There is no way that mySQL could become enterprise ready so quickly without help from SAP and through the use of Oracle's IP"
Re:predicting the future.... (Score:2)
I realize this is meant as a joke, but... not likely. As much FUD as Microsoft might spread about Linux, they would much rather see Oracle fail than see Linux fail (though in the end they want to destroy both).
Benefits? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again, at work I'm just a normal office worker, and don't get to see the inner periphelas of SAP - I'm just using it.
This might be a good move, however, as SAP databases are (if I remember correctly) quite large. Two large corporations working together on one databse should benefit all of us - It sure beats competition database to database. In some time, we'll see how much impact such a cooperation will have on large-scale databases. Maybe complex operations in
Never heard of SAP... (Score:2, Funny)
So, nice to see somebody else
Re:Never heard of SAP... (Score:3, Flamebait)
IBM has DB2, which is vastly superior to MySQL.
MySQL has improved, but it really is still pretty crappy. No subselects, no triggers, and it doesnt even use real standard SQL.
Its fine for most web applications, which are just simple table lookups, but for more complicated data management systems, it cant remotely cut it.
Oracle, SQL Server and DB2 have a lock on the enterprise DMBS market, and for good reason. They are the best pieces of software in the field right
Re:Never heard of SAP... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Never heard of SAP... (Score:2)
Re:Never heard of SAP... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Never heard of SAP... (Score:2)
Actually, the core of the system usually is someone else's database, most businesses run SAP on Oracle or DB2.
Re:Never heard of SAP... (Score:2)
Re:Never heard of SAP... (Score:2, Interesting)
Shouldn't that be everybody who knows about databases?
SAP is one of the tree big players on the ERP,CRM,HRM(or whatever TLA they use now). I suspect that more users know that they use SAP than that they know which database there ERP program uses.
SAP setzt auf MySQL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SAP setzt auf MySQL (Score:4, Funny)
* von der Tabelle IN DER somefield = "eine Last des Textes" UND des something_else > 4 VORWÄHLEN Sie;
And back to English:
* of the table IN somefield = "the load of the text" AND something_else > 4 PRESELECTING it;
Re:SAP setzt auf MySQL (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SAP setzt auf MySQL (Score:2)
Next Generation SQL: PQL (Score:3, Funny)
Sigh, when will people realise that computers work better if you're polite, meek and gentle around them; just think how much more data would be lost without people around the world repeating words to the effect of "Please, Please don't fail until this backup's complete" when hard drives start to fail!
In this vein, I have started development of a next generation data processing language, aimed at harnessing the hugely underused power of
What is holding SAP-DB back? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/08/0
Didn't Microsoft... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Didn't Microsoft... (Score:2)
The main software that SAP sells is the set of applications that use a database (in Microsoft's case, a code fork of Sybase SQL Server). The DBMS is the smallest part of the code that is running...
Re:Didn't Microsoft... (Score:3, Interesting)
At any rate, the "platform politicking" was a big deal. That was the same year when MSFT was heavily marketing that Windows NT was an excellent platform for running R/3. At that point, on Oracle, because it wasn't 'til about '97 or '98 that Microsoft's version of Sybase beca
Re:Didn't Microsoft... (Score:2)
The point is, nonetheless, serious, if a little bit off topic. This story (Microsoft using R/3 on OS/400) is exactly the sort of thing that it is convenient for Microsoft to see disappear from the web.
University students that leap into a world where they think all research can be done on the Web have some Serious Risks in that not only can't you guarantee that things written are necessarily the truth, but you also can't guarantee that t
welcome translation, liking this am I (Score:4, Funny)
Features? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Features? (Score:2)
A theory on why they've done this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A theory on why they've done this... (Score:2)
Re:A theory on why they've done this... (Score:2, Informative)
SAP no doubt wants a piece of the enterprise DB pie...
They've been at pains to claim otherwise. According to material on the SAPDB web site, they *are not* interested in selling a relational database system. Rather, they want an enterprise-class, royalty-free database they can use as the basis for their core apps.
SAPDB is trying to popularize its main applications (ERP, CRM) in smaller businesses than those in which they have traditionally been popular. Microsoft is just now entering this same spac
No, no, no, SAP DB is not SAP (Score:2)
Oracle seems to be the most popular back end for SAP applications, but SAP doesn't trust Oracle not to try to steal its customers for Oracle's own application software. Also, the expense of Oracle's database reduces the amount a company can spend on SAP software. So SAP pays dozens of developers to build a
oh no! (Score:2, Funny)
we're all doomed.
Uh oh... (Score:3, Interesting)
It a easy to use, psudo-database thats really fast.
It's not a real database - but it's two strength (ease and speed) make it ideal for many projects.
I love PostgreSQL for all sorts of real database reasons, but for some tasks MySQL is superior (like PHP websites).
Then MySQL should reclassify itself. (Score:2, Insightful)
You have MySQL which is like BerkeleyDB but with more sugar, with a network-centric view, and meta-data. But it does not skimp on speed for features or safety.
I don't know if Microsoft Access is in the first class or second, I'd have to say first.
Then you have the true RDBMS, MSSQL, Oracle, DB
Re:Then MySQL should reclassify itself. (Score:2)
Re:Uh oh... (Score:2)
and like Visual Basic. All three are superior for tasks , which assigned programmers who doesn't know (or even worse: is not capable to know) anything else.
Typical dialog with PHP programmer: "Why do you use PHP?" - "It's fast to develop comparing to C!" - "Have you tried Zope or Cocoon or Axkit?" - "No, but why? PHP is already fast." - "Have you tried to develop and *debug* complex web applications?" - "No, PHP is good for single pages and that's wha
SAP and MySQL Join Forces (Score:2)
They hired a CEO?
Reminds me of another system.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reminds me of another system.... (Score:3, Informative)
Brilliant. [mysap.com]
Google Translation (Score:4, Funny)
My two favorite:
Ugly move, if true--current users had no warning (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess that tends to confirm this story, though for myself (and this is the view expressed by everyone who's commented on the SAPDB list) I can't see how this works technically. The two systems are virtually nothing alike, for all they both speak SQL.
Worse, if true, this is far from the right way to treat the user community that has grown up around SAPDB. In that they found out about this in the Heise story--just like Slashdot.
Not nice.
For the past 2 years, it's seemed like there was a slow process of opening-up on the SAPDB list. The internal SAP developers finally this year provided external CVS access, and although they still seemed to value the fact that the code was difficult for non-SAP people to understand and work on--riddled with strange interfaces like COM migrated to Unix sans comments, and intentionally undocumented areas--I got the sense that things were improving.
For all the above, SAPDB as a project felt (perhaps due to its status as the less-known, more featureful GPL'd dbms) like a community resource that _came from_ a company, rather than like the property of a company you can download for free, which is how I've always seen mysql.
I still can't figure out what to feel about the vaporware merger of the systems, with development done by (yikes!) the Mysql folks, who a few years ago said we had no nead for transactions...
Platform Agnostic (Score:3, Interesting)
Most seem to be missing the point here. SAP is pretty committed to being platform agnostic and standards compliant. The main R/3 ERP runs on NT, AIX, HP-UX, OS390, Solaris, Linux etc and databases such as SQL server, DB2, Oracle, Informix and SAPDB
SAP sells to the users management, not the IT department, and have you tried to dictate to them what platform to run? Especially a big corporate data centre with mainframes etc.
If you ask SAP for a recommended platform for a component, they'll tell you to use one of the supported platforms and not a specific vendor. That's how they maintain the relationships with all vendors like MS, IBM and Oracle.
SAP has been making a concerted effort to support linux (well Red Hat) for about five years and almost all components are supported, I only know of one in beta and not supported for productive use. If there is demand to run on linux, then they will meet that demand. The last thing they want is to be only MS or IBM, cutting off potential sales and the associated TCO issues affecting the product's sales viability.This becomes especially important as they approach market saturation in the Fortune 1000 space and look towards SME's.
This could represent a big opportunity to the open source community as SAP spends serious $$$ on platform support and R&D (not games consoles and Bluetooth Keyboards). SAP support of an Open Source database WILL give the platform some serious datacentre cred.
This is why SAP and mySQL would want this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
Ted Codd's only been dead a month and he's already rolling over in his grave.
And learn how to freakin' spell.
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the development of a transactional processing system, once the volume of data becomes large and the needs for data integrity and manageability becomes overwhelming... you had soooo better be using a relational database. Object databases just aren't suited for the kind of work that is really important to the majority
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
This sounds like you are giving quality-of-implementation reasons for favoring relational models above entity-relationship models.
I'd say that the relational model per se is better fitted for large data sets.
As nice as the thought of looking at everything as objects is, it just isn't f
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
We're using Postgres for GForge [gforge.org] - this GForge installation [cougaar.org] has a 216 MB database. Not very big yet, but running smooth and serving up plenty of hits [cougaar.org] so far....
Yours,
Tom
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
and running smoothly.
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
There's a link to some of them here [google.com]
600 Megs, how quaint.
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
'jfb
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
Sweet. Nice setup.
I'll post back here if mine gets over a couple GB... most of the space in it is consumed right here:
http://cougaarforge.cougaar.org/docman/?group_id=1 6 [cougaar.org]
Lots of documentation....
Yours,
Tom
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:4, Interesting)
MySQL is pretty professional enough for us.
We have MySQL managing a 30+GB dataset with InnoDB tables, receiving approximately 700 queries/second average.
It's running on a dual P3-1.4GHz with 2GB of RAM on 36GB RAID-1 array. We're about to replace it with a dual P4-Xeon at 2.4Ghz, 3GB of RAM, and two 72GB RAID-5 volumes.
It operates 24/365.
Re:no more RDBS? (Score:2)
I think PostgreSQL is fairly robust for medium/large databases, though (depending on the kind of usage, of course), and they
As an aside... (Score:2)
But I did like how you transformed the BSD troll (if that really is your doing), very original if so, and quite entertaining none-the-less. Still, I think this wasn't the right article to post it under.
Re:As an aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you have any idea how much a typical SAP implementation costs? I'd bet the median price is $10 million dollars. In an implementation of that size you could probably trim 1% by shifting from DB2 to mysql. Nobody worth their salt would recommend such a rediculous move.
By the time they get SAP running reliably on mysql it will be four years down the road and the product will be completely reengineered.
In the meanwhile, I suppose there's some
Good for MySQL AB (Score:2)
The lot of slashdot could care less about them (myself included).
Perhaps it's a dumb move on SAP's part. Or maybe they know something we don't.
Whatever, it means more money. Hurrah.
MySQL is a non-free product AND a free product (Score:5, Interesting)
funny thing is, they FUD the GPL on their own site, basically saying that if you write a commercial app that uses MySQL you HAVE to buy the commercial version.
Last I checked, trying to limit the scope of use of software covered by the GPL was in fact a violation of the GPL.
but MySQL is a favored child, so the FSF says nothing.
Re:MySQL is a non-free product AND a free product (Score:2, Insightful)
funny thing is, they FUD the GPL on their own site, basically saying that if you write a commercial app that uses MySQL you HAVE to buy the commercial version.
The statement that you bump into the most:
You need to purchase commercial non-GPL MySQL licenses:
* If you distribute MySQL Software with your non open source software,
* If you want warranty from MySQL AB for the MySQL software,
* If you want to support MySQL development.
is both reasonable and accurate. Are you talking about some
Re:MySQL is a non-free product AND a free product (Score:2)
[...] But think about it: are the two *programs* really exchanging complex *internal* data structures? How is my complex database structure *internal* to MySQL? It's not. MySQL runs just fine without my table files.
[...]
It is hard to imagine a more arms-length method of communication than SQL, especially if it's sent across the planet to a remote MySQL server. [...]
You seem to focus on the client/server part or whatever. But the client library, which you do link int
Re:MySQL is a non-free product AND a free product (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind the pure GPL play if it wasn't to extort more money out of companies using MySQL in an otherwise acceptable way but being stuck by this licensing of their client.
Postgresql's pure BSD license is preferable for most companies, and many do pick it over MySQL for that very reason.
Uhhhh (Score:2)
http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql-4.0.
Or do you mean like MS SQL?
Re:Uhhhh (Score:2)
Re:A dynamite combination? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SAP or MySQL? (Score:2)
That is because SAP makes a very large line of very large products that have nothing to do with their database. While many people probably do use SAPDB, most people running SAP apps are running them on top of MSSQL or Oracle. IMO, if they can't get their own customers to use their own stuff I'd stay away from it.
I'm wondering if this SAP DB might be a better solution?
Honestly, I wouldn't even think about it for a number of reasons:
a) I
Re:you need some research... (Score:2)
Vacuums can be run while the database is in full operation. i know, I've done it.
the folks who test the Linux kernel for scalability under a database are switching FROM SAPdb TO Postgresql because it is faster and provides more load on the kernel than SAPdb.
If your performance degrades over time, you likely don't know how to vacuum, or need to reindex. Reindexing will be a non issue in 7.4, due out this
Re:IBM should explain why crippled DB2 to cost $10 (Score:2)
After that, windows will be a natively supported platform.
Re:only 1 serious free dbms left... (Score:2)