MySQL Outpacing Oracle In Wake of Acquisition 157
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."
Oh, bruther (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hey, look (Score:2, Insightful)
An InfoWorld submitter submits a non-story about Oracle/MySQL on Slashdot. A Slashvertisement for an advertisement.
Re:Oh, bruther (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice to them (Score:3, Insightful)
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-aid on a cut, Oracle is like brain surgery.
The title is misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some POed sales guys (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think there are many MySQL users that would have even considered talking to an Oracle sales representative.
Re:Oh, bruther (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice to them (Score:2, Insightful)
If every production database required an arrogant and overpriced Oracle shill to maintain it, nothing would ever get done.
Re:State of the Databases (Score:5, Insightful)
You could not be more wrong about:
Oracle needs to drop the high prices, the competition in the market now doesnt allow them to have those prices.
An this is why...
It's called support. One of the major reasons I recommend Oracle to clients who need maximum uptime and downtime is just not an option is because of the world class support Oracle provides. If you are a licensed Oracle site you have support 24/7/365 no matter what time zone or country you happen to be in. If you pick up the phone and say those magic words, "I'm down" the calvary is not just coming over the hill they are at your door. Guess what that kind of support costs a lot of money to provide.
In our race to the bottom of the price bucket lots of things have to be cut and guess where they cut first, you guessed it, in support. With Oracle support you do not get script readers in India or the Philippines you get an Oracle engineer on the phone ready to tackle the problem with you until the problem is solved and they will bring in whatever other resources are required.
MySQL is a wonder database that does what it does very well, but would I put it up in a mission critical bit of infrastructure? Not on a bet. Those companies that have, eg: Sales Force and the like have had to hire LOTS of engineers/developers to handle MySQL in big installations and that costs even more.
Postgre has no such level of support either. So when you missions critical DB goes south either you better be able to fix it or you had better have a lot of friends you can wake up in the middle of the night.
Re:Maybe this is why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't blame the tools for your inability to use them correctly.
That's bullshit and you know it and it's that attitude that gives IT people a reputation of being immature and arrogant .
When I had those problems I googled quite a bit and you know what? The problems I mentioned are very common; which means that it's a design and implementation problem with all of those development tools.
So, I am blaming the tools for their poor design. You can be as condescending and insulting all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the tools have problems.
Re:Oh, bruther (Score:1, Insightful)
Treating the database as a black box is the problem, not the solution.
Then the database is broken.
No, the database management system is not broken - the developers stopped thinking. Different implementation choices give rise to different behaviours. For instance, Oracles default with snapshot transaction isolation, mostly non-blocking reads and writes, as well as almost "no-cost" locking is quite different from SQL Servers read-commited transaction isolation level where readers block writers and vice versa (and resource expensive locks). In other words, running the same queries against the "same" database will give different results in the different database management systems. Oracle is arguably closer to the ideal but if you don't need to handle lots of concurrent transactions then SQL Server may have less overhead. The choice is yours but make that an informed decision and learn about the system you are using!
(rant mode)
In my 10+ years as a professional DBA I have found that the worst "abusers" of database management systems are (non-database) developers who stop thinking at their database access layer - or even before that. Persistence layers are bad but at least they shield the database management system from the worst abuse produced by developers.
Re:Oh, bruther (Score:4, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
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 price, you live with it. With Oracle you start looking into the manuals and contemplating playing with things only an expert Oracle DBA ought to mess with. Then if you get it wrong, it's *your* fail.
I think Oracle's a great product. If I was looking at a project where I had to choose between SQL Server and Oracle, I'd definitely go Oracle even if I had to pay twice the license fee. Oracle's transaction log management capabilities would be worth the price alone. Nobody does transaction isolation better than Oracle, either. But ye gods you can screw yourself messing around on one hand, or not paying enough attention on the other.
I've used both MySQL and Oracle, and I'm comfortable with Oracle, except I don't much like the company or its corporate culture (not that that matters if the question is MySQL vs. Oracle). I might be more comfortable handing off a MySQL project to another developer or manager.
Re:Nice to them (Score:1, Insightful)
Not sure why I typed 'hostnames' here. But MySQL allows all kinds of bad programming practices (for example, inserting text strings into numeric fields) and either fails silently (inserting garbage data into your table) or does what it thinks you want it to do.
Other databases, such as Postgres and Oracle, generate errors and refuse to do anything when they encounter these problems - they don't fail silently.
Combined with the fact that MySQL allows non-standard syntax and non-standard operations, the end effect is that if you develop against MySQL and use all of the "idiot features" it's very difficult to port to a real DBMS such as Postgres or Oracle.