Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Databases Open Source Oracle

MySQL Outpacing Oracle In Wake of Acquisition 157

Posted by Soulskill
from the so-much-for-fud dept.
snydeq writes "Results from the 2010 Eclipse User Survey reveal interesting trends surrounding open source usage and opinions, writes InfoWorld's Savio Rodrigues. Linux usage among developers is on the rise, at the expense of Windows, and MySQL has pulled ahead of Oracle, by a factor of 3-to-2, as the database of choice among Eclipse developers. 'The data demonstrate that fears surrounding Oracle's control over MySQL have not resulted in lower use of MySQL in favor of an alternative open source database,' Rodrigues writes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MySQL Outpacing Oracle In Wake of Acquisition

Comments Filter:
  • I like Oracle, its products and technologies and I am glad that its opensource products are gaining sales. I wish good luck to Oracle.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 1s44c (552956)

      I like Oracle, its products and technologies and I am glad that its opensource products are gaining sales. I wish good luck to Oracle.

      I like Oracles's database, it's a great database with tons of features but it's pretty expensive. However the business software that oracle sells is a PITA.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The Snowman (116231)

      I like Oracle, its products and technologies and I am glad that its opensource products are gaining sales. I wish good luck to Oracle.

      I like Oracle too, as long as someone else is the DBA. Installing Oracle, setting up a database, and getting it to a usable state is almost impossible without six months of training.

      PostgreSQL, MySQL, even SQL Server are all much easier to get up and running in a usable configuration than Oracle. I don't mean slightly easier, either. If other databases are like putting a band

      • by Anrego (830717) *

        I don't mean slightly easier, either. If other databases are like putting a band-aid on a cut, Oracle is like brain surgery.

        Totally.

        I almost think oracle does this on purpose to drum up consulting fees or something. For such a powerful database product, all the tools around it are almost intentionally unintuitive and fragile.

        Even connecting to oracle, arguably the simplest interaction with most databases, is more complicated. Most databases you just specify a hostname, username, and password.. oracle seems to insist on all manner of weird voodoo. Once you know that voodoo it's no problem.. but initially it's like "service name"

        • It's a attempt at simplicity. Change one place, and one place only, on an entire application server and you switch from old DB server to new DB server. Cross-application, cross-language, all are changed instantly.

          Even if an app is using a centralized configuration point, if you are running multiple small applications on the same server, it helps with keeping things straight.

      • by mcvos (645701)

        I like Oracle, its products and technologies and I am glad that its opensource products are gaining sales. I wish good luck to Oracle.

        I like Oracle too, as long as someone else is the DBA. Installing Oracle, setting up a database, and getting it to a usable state is almost impossible without six months of training.

        On every project where we've used Oracle, we ran into problems with it. Quite often, somewhere early in development, we used MySQL or something like that. At some point we move to production-like environment with Oracle, and it should be a simple matter of plugging in a different DB, but every single time, we suddenly find ourselves in a big mess where types don't quite fit or column names are too long or illegal or whatever.

        Oracle might be really nice if it was just more powerful, rather than more restrict

        • Re:Nice to them (Score:4, Informative)

          by jazzkat (901547) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @02:34PM (#32551376)
          This is because you're using MySQL to develop on. MySQL allows all manner of illegal hostnames and other bad programming practices in the name of "making things easier" for people who don't know any better.

          If you developed using Postgres, or another more compliant database, most of these problems would go away.
  • Oh, bruther (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! (33014) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @11:35AM (#32549902) Homepage Journal

    What a non-story.

    You use Oracle because you *have to*. Not because it is pretty.

    Saying MySQL has pulled ahead of Oracle is like saying that claw hammers have pulled ahead of pneumatic hammers mounted on giant excavators.

    • Re:Oh, bruther (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday June 12, 2010 @11:46AM (#32549976) Homepage Journal

      You use Oracle because you *have to*. Not because it is pretty.

      Similar things have been said about MySQL. It's a de facto standard, which many view as being quite unfortunate in light of the competition.

      Saying MySQL has pulled ahead of Oracle is like saying that claw hammers have pulled ahead of pneumatic hammers mounted on giant excavators.

      Since MySQL got clustering it became capable of replacing Oracle in certain contexts. I don't have a tool-related metaphor handy but there are actually cases in which the comparison might not be so ridiculous.

      • by hey! (33014)

        In certain contexts, granted. And where you have such a context, by all means go for it if you like MySQL and are comfortable with it. I haven't used MySQL Cluster, but what I've read about it makes it seem pretty nifty. But I've also seen situations where MySQL even with clustering wouldn't work, particularly as transactions scale in complexity, not just volume.

      • Have you ever used MySQL's clustering? I'm not talking about replication, but their NDBCluster engine. Every time it's been considered around me, MySQL AB and then SUN basically said outright that we'd need to purchase enterprise support packages. Well when we got adding up those support and optimization costs it got high enough that it begged the question, why not spend an extra 10% and go with IBM DB2.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Every time it's been considered around me, MySQL AB and then SUN basically said outright that we'd need to purchase enterprise support packages.

          Seems to me like it's one of those "if you have to ask" situations. How much will a shitload of Oracle licenses cost you? How many developer man-hours would a MySQL-based solution cost you? How competent is your company at hiring technical employees if it doesn't have the talent onboard already? Etc.

        • If you don't want to pay for the NDB software, you can get the OSS/GPL version.

          If you want support for the NDB software, you're going to have to pay *somebody* for it, even if that somebody is just someone on your own payroll reading the Cluster mailing list/forum/blogs/docs and learning things the hard way.

          Does the "10% extra" for DB2 include support?

        • by shaitand (626655)

          If you NEED clustering you are talking about an enterprise scale implementation. If you are talking about an enterprise scale implementation and it isn't going to make you enough to justify enterprise level support... you might need to reconsider whatever led you down this path.

          I work in enterprise tech and I find it annoying how much the entry level products cost or that some of them don't work without a current support contract. But the only reason that is annoying is that I'd like a small ex switch runni

          • by shaitand (626655)

            P.S. it is also possible you are undervaluing the infrastructure that makes your profits possible. I have seen ignorant companies that think sales have a greater impact on their profit than infrastructure.

            The reality of course is that while sales is easy to measure and visible an infrastructure (including tech staff) breakdown will cause the house of cards to collapse just as surely.

    • by mjwalshe (1680392)
      and "database of choice among Eclipse developers." Oracle developers will be using TOAD or enterprise mangler (or what ever oracle is calling it now) if they are unlucky - dubious use of statistics there
    • I disagree. Oracle makes a pretty good and fast database. They also offer a free version for OSS and small companies I believe.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hey! (33014)

        For what a lot of people use databases for (backing store for form entry) it really doesn't matter because you only use generic capabilities and work mostly in your IDE.

        When it gets to really challenging database problems, it's a question of which fail comes first: the failure of the developer or admin using Oracle or the failure of MySQL to keep up with the application's needs. For example, if you need just a bit more performance, with MySQL your response is simple: get bigger iron. If it's not worth the

        • by lakeland (218447)

          I didn't. I got burned too often by small projects having to be changed because of licencing issues.

          (rant starting)
          For instance I had a 'team' (of 2) doing advanced analytics that were hammering the data warehouse. It was proposed to use RAC and have them access another machine - for the cost of RAC I could buy a whole team to write custom replication code! Then it was proposed to replicate using some simple ETL code to another database, canned due to the cost of another production Oracle licence just to

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by hey! (33014)

            Well, one thing I don't like about Oracle is its rapaciously sales-oriented corporate culture. Of course business is all about making sales, but Oracle really doesn't care of you bought the wrong thing or spent 10x what you needed to. They don't care if you buy the wrong class of license and have to throw it away because it doesn't work for you. I've seen cases where organizations have paid huge amounts of money to get Oracle Enterprise where they only intended to use features in Oracle Standard at a tin

          • by cduffy (652)

            I tend to agree with your decision, having been burned badly by Oracle agreeing to a mutually reasonable licensing arrangement up-front and then deciding to force a change of terms down the road.

            My current employer is a Fortune 50, and might have enough clout to avoid that -- but the little startups I used to work for in the past most certainly couldn't.

            Anyhow, where I was going -- one of those startups had a fairly positive experience with EnterpriseDB (a commercial product built on top of PostgreSQL -- th

    • by Kjella (173770)

      You use Oracle because you *have to*. Not because it is pretty.

      Oracle is past that and way into user-unfriendly in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, if you write queries that are exactly how Oracle likes them it's fast and solid, but I've worked with SQL Server, PostgreSQL and MySQL as well and the management tools are easier, the query optimizer is more flexible and the error messages more helpful. Particularly that Oracle wants queries their way, I've reused queries that run in seconds on SQL Server and take minutes on Oracle but hardly if ever the other way around. It

      • Re:Oh, bruther (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Score Whore (32328) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @01:05PM (#32550672)

        Don't get me wrong, if you write queries that are exactly how Oracle likes them it's fast and solid, but I've worked with SQL Server, PostgreSQL and MySQL as well and the management tools are easier, the query optimizer is more flexible and the error messages more helpful. Particularly that Oracle wants queries their way, I've reused queries that run in seconds on SQL Server and take minutes on Oracle but hardly if ever the other way around.

        Treating the database as a black box is the problem, not the solution. At least if you're dealing with more than trivial amounts of data with trivial queries. It is amazing how many developers are shocked that their app, that worked perfectly on their desktop against their own personally installed database with, gosh, nearly two megabytes of data, completely falls over when deployed into against the eight terabyte production database.

        In other words, a database isn't a replacement for thinking.

        • by NNKK (218503)

          Treating the database as a black box is the problem, not the solution.

          Then the database is broken.

        • Re:Oh, bruther (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kjella (173770) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @03:12PM (#32551636) Homepage

          Well doh, that would be comparing blueberries to watermelons. But I've been been working with a product that supports both SQL Server and Oracle so production databases of about equal size, equal hardware and equal content. I develop queries to show something at one client site, then reuse it at a different client site with a different database system. In short, two equally smart database systems should perform about the same. What I'm saying is that in my experience Oracle often generates very poor execution plans, and fiddling with it to make Oracle do it "right" that others manage just fine on their own is not treating it as a black box, it's tedious and unnecessary micromanagement to overcome product shortcomings.

          • Re:Oh, bruther (Score:4, Informative)

            by hey! (33014) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @06:01PM (#32552726) Homepage Journal

            In short, two equally smart database systems should perform about the same.

            Bingo. Ergo, something is wrong with your Oracle installations.

            I've done the same, supported an application that is available for MS SQL, Oracle and Sybase Sql Anywhere. MS SQL and Oracle blow SQL Anywhere out of the water in performance, but in most situations you couldn't tell the difference.

            From a developer's POV, SQL Anywhere was in most cases a pleasure to work with, Oracle was acceptable in most cases and outstanding in a few, and MS SQL was a horrible PITA. MS SQL doesn't even provide you with a utility to get a human readable dump of the transaction log, much less any way to use the transaction log in a complex recovery (unless you fancy working with page addresses). When a customer does something really stupid, and calls you up saying, "please, please make it like that never happened," it's as easy as rolling off a log in Oracle, practical in SQL Anywhere and not worth doing in MS SQL.

            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              Has anyone done a good performance:scalability roundup on RDBMSes recently? When I worked for Tivoli, which was years ago now, DB2 was slowest but most scalable, Oracle slightly faster and significantly less scalable, Sybase much less scalable and much faster, and SQL Server (which was based on Sybase 10 at the time; Sybase being on Version 11) was the fastest and by far least scalable. I would be surprised if all this wasn't still true; is it?

              The only thing I've personally noticed (the performance tests we

              • by hey! (33014)

                You ain't kiddin' about Oracle installs being a PITA. Not for somebody who does them all the time, but if you support apps you get reminded.

                Most RDBMS EULAs forbid publishing benchmarks unless they've been improved by the vendor, so who knows? Your experience pretty much agrees with mine.

                • Two things, wonderful Freudian slip unless "improved" was intentional.

                  Second, the motion for bad installer is carried. Oracle 10g's Windows client installer cannot figure out that if I set my virtual memory to automatic, then I actually do have virtual memory and that it shouldn't fail with a suggestion that I set my virtual memory to bigger than 256MB.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by bertok (226922)

            Thank you! I thought it was just me!

            I did the same test a couple of years ago. I was writing an app for a huge data set, but I was told to do the proof-of-concept on both Oracle and SQL Server. I used two identical servers, identical SAN volumes, etc...

            The result was shocking. Oracle is at least 5x as slow as SQL Server. It seems to pick acceptable query plans, but for some reason it's just... slower.

            One possible explanation that occurred to me is that SQL Server clusters all data by default, whereas that's

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hey! (33014)

        MS SQL does a pretty good job optimizing common queries, but at a tremendous cost in orthogonality of T-SQL. I've also found limitations in MS SQL handling of very complex queries, but there is no question that on the kinds of queries that dominate in the vast majority of applications, MS SQL provides reliably good performance out of the box.

        That's an engineering trade-off that works for lots of people.

        That said, you're going about this the wrong way. The solution to generally inconsistent query performanc

    • Re:Oh, bruther (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 14erCleaner (745600) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Saturday June 12, 2010 @12:58PM (#32550596) Homepage Journal
      Furthermore, this is a survey of Eclipse users, not all database users. Developers using a free framework prefer a free database. Surprise!
  • Hey, look (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Megaweapon (25185)

    An InfoWorld submitter submits a non-story about Oracle/MySQL on Slashdot. A Slashvertisement for an advertisement.

    • And the InfoWorld story is about the findings from the "2010 Eclipse User Survey", which is a pretty self-selective sample in and of itself: if you're using Eclipse, you're obviously NOT targeting Windows exclusively, you have the OPTION to use Desktop Linux, you have the OPTION to use MySQL, etc.
    • Just do what I do and add a line to your CSS to flag InfoWorld links with an [idiot warning]. That way, you won't accidentally click on one and you can come straight to the comments without bothering to read the flawed premise in the article.
  • Now that MySQL is in the firm hand of Oracle, what can Oracle do in the future to either suppress MySQL's progress or merge it with its money-sucking schemes?
    • I have to admit, I LOL'ed when I read:

      MySQL has some properties that Oracle does not," Screven said in an interview with InfoWorld before the keynote speech. "It's small, it's easy to install. It's easy for developers to get going with it."

      I know I've installed Oracle dozens of times - on the same machine.

      What Oracle could do is provide an easy migration path from MySQL to Oracle DB, so one could develop/deploy on MySQL, and move to full Oracle when traffic/size warrants. Just being able to use the same

      • Now that Oracle owns the MySQL copyright, there's nothing (other than time and effort) stopping them from taking the front end and adding it as a personality layer on top of Oracle, so you could access the same tables via Oracle and MySQL's interfaces. This would make migration much easier for people; move the data into the Oracle DB and then build new stuff on top of Oracle, while the old stuff keeps thinking it's running on MySQL.
    • by tomhath (637240)

      If MySQL meets your needs you wouldn't consider Oracle. If your application is successful enough that you need help scaling out a heavy duty DBMS solution, the guys who are supporting MySQL will be happy to send out a "consultant" to suggest alternatives.

      And what do you suppose they will suggest?

  • by MagicMerlin (576324) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @11:45AM (#32549960)
    11%...edging out ms sql server! Postgres 9.0 has built in replication -- it will be interesting to see how that affects its share of the open source db space.
    • by 1s44c (552956)

      11%...edging out ms sql server! Postgres 9.0 has built in replication -- it will be interesting to see how that affects its share of the open source db space.

      Postgres has been in continual development for decades longer than MS SQL server. Postgres is a far better quality product than Microsoft's effort plus it's free.

      The only reason to use MS SQL for anything new is if you are getting bribes from a Microsoft salesman.

      • by MagicMerlin (576324) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @12:39PM (#32550426)
        Postgres has traditionally had lousy replication options. This of course is going to change with 9.0 hs/sr. Older versions of postgres (pre 8.x) had some operational difficulties that made it an awkward fit for high transaction load web environments. Now that those downsides are pretty much eliminated, it's about the best general purpose sql database out there -- it has many niceties/features that are rare/non-existent elsewhere. Transactional ddl for example.
        • I think what you meant is that PostgreSQL had a number of 3rd party Replication tools that were designed for certain types of usage. Over the years I've used PGCluster I/II, PGPool, SunPlex, and Slony. And a lot of the times, when I saw this happening, the person making the decision was a developer/programmer who often times thought they knew systems and databases. With MySQL, that decision is easy. With PostgreSQL you have to know what your goal is and then which tool is right for that job. Sometimes

        • by neoform (551705)

          Postgres's pain in the ass enumeration handling annoys me greatly.

          (What I mean: Once an ENUM has been set in a table, you cannot add/remove/edit fields in it. That really sucks.)

  • The 'fears' surrounding Oracle's acquisition of MySQL hadn't stopped people from using it because let's be honest; most developers don't know about that/don't know the consequences/aren't familiar with other free databases. The developers, much like the users they like to call 'lusers'; also look for convenience and try to work in what they're familiar with. That's why many developers who know very well Microsoft's ways still use their technologies; it's what they're used to and change takes time and adapt
    • by mustafap (452510)

      >most developers don't know about that/don't know the consequences/aren't familiar with other free databases

      Really? That's rather disingenuous. I know plenty of Java developers ( the type who are in between McDonalds jobs ) who are familiar with MySQL.

      • by Voulnet (1630793)
        Dude, I meant many developers don't know about Oracle's acquisition of MySQL; not that developers don't know about MySQL. Come on, now.
        • by mustafap (452510)

          So you should have written

          "many developers don't know about Oracle's acquisition of MySQL"

          rather than

          "most developers don't know about that/don't know the consequences/aren't familiar with other free databases"

          Apologies that I cannot read your mind.

          • by Voulnet (1630793)
            The sentence is crystal clear: "The 'fears' surrounding Oracle's acquisition of MySQL hadn't stopped people from using it because let's be honest; most developers don't know about that" It takes guts to admit you're wrong. You have none.
  • by jitendraharlalka (1702444) <jitendra@harlalka.gmail@com> on Saturday June 12, 2010 @11:58AM (#32550086)
    It is definitely great to know that MySQL is doing great even in Oracle's hands and even Linux is growing in Eclipse User Survey. However, the title of the post is totally misleading as it is merely based on Eclipse User survey and that too with merely 1696 users. Nearly 40% of the respondents came merely from Germany and France (The survey believes this shouldn't bias result but we really have no reason to believe their assumption).
    • by bgspence (155914)

      Any statistic significantly skewed by adding or subtracting 1 to either your numerator or denominator is a statistic too fragile to support a conclusion.

  • "MySQL has pulled ahead of Oracle, by a factor of 3-to-2, as the database of choice among Eclipse developers." You can be sure there are some Oracle sales and marketing guys who are livid at this. They see every MySQL user as money out their pocket (because of reduced bonus). These guys usually have a lot of clout with the corporate execs and they are going to be lobbying to reduce the the competition from MySQL. In my company the sr execs will do some dumb stuff (e. g., things that hurt the long term, in
    • by nxtw (866177) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @01:02PM (#32550614)

      I don't think there are many MySQL users that would have even considered talking to an Oracle sales representative.

      • by fatray (160258)
        Yes, I think that the Oracle sales to lost to free MySQL is tiny or none at all. What I am saying is the guy the didn't get his bonus this quarter because he was one or two sales short might have a very emotional response when he sees his company giving away a product that competes with what he is trying to sell (regardless of whether MySQL actually competes with his product). I am too fat and lazy to see how Oracle sales have been doing the last couple of years, but I suspect that a lot of the sales reps a
    • Maybe those guys should go to work for the RIAA. One more time: just because someone went with a free alternative does not mean you lost a sale of an overpriced product.
  • "MySQL Outpacing Oracle Among Eclipse Developers In Wake of Acquisition"

    Of course, that headline isn't particularly newsworthy. As the article cited states "it would be a stretch to say that these results from the 457 respondents represent the overall market".

  • Oracle specializes in keeping the "master" corporate data. It is robust and well-tested. MySql specializes in department-specific copies of subsets of the master data for internal or local usage. There may be a middle area where they fight for control, but in general it's a matter of the best tool for the job.

  • I've got to add some embedded client components for syncing a MySQL DB data mart to a remote customer's web services XML interface to an existing app that runs in JBoss against MySQL, with a PHP interface (and a Flex/Flash client), code in an SVN repo.

    Is there a good website telling me how to get started with Eclipse and the best plugins and configs, installed and configured on an Ubuntu server?

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.

Working...