MySQL To Be Ikea Of The Database Market 242
Rob wrote to mention an article discussing MySQL's intent to become 'the Ikea of databases'. From the piece: "While new entrants into the open source database market, such as EnterpriseDB and Pervasive Software, have made no secret of their intentions to chase Oracle's market share, Mr Mickos said MySQL is happy to leave them to it. 'We are thankful that they are there to define the market, there is no product if you're the only vendor,' he said. "Pervasive and EnterpriseDB are going up against Oracle. We don't want to be in that space, we don't want to take the heat from Oracle. If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion.'"
Ikea, eh? (Score:4, Funny)
And how can I deck out my house in mid-century modern MySQL? I'd like to see that.
Pfft, yet another tease.
Re:Ikea, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
There's a large supply of tables to choose from. You even put them together yourself. Just name them Coffee, Kitchen, End, etc.
Re:Ikea, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, you mean Pikea.
Re:Ikea, eh? (Score:2)
Re:Ikea, eh? (Score:2)
I suppose using the term 'steaming pile' is more commonly associated with excrement, but then again parent was going for funny. Well, now it's not that funny any more since I've had to explain the joke. Sorry!
Does that mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how they manage Ikea in your area, but comparing MySQL to Ikea is an insult to Ikea.
I'd describe Ikea something like this:
Choose two:
Whereas MySQL would be something like this:
Choose three:
Re:Does that mean... (Score:2)
Maybe that's what MySQL is trying to get at: if you spend the bux to get a high-end version, it's great, but if you stick with the low-end version, your tables will wobble
Re:Does that mean... (Score:2)
Oooo... stop it!! First three rules of comedy; no puns, no puns and no puns.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:2)
Me too. I've put together quite a lot of flatpack stuff in my time, and in general Ikea's is by far the best designed and has the clearest instructions. Parts are often designed so you cannot put them in the wrong place (cf. all the differently shaped connectors on the back of a PC).
I always use a hex bit in a socket screwdriver to assemble flatpack furniture. Recently, fixing metal leg attachments to a TV bench, I was perplexed to see that the in
Re:Does that mean... (Score:3, Informative)
Not to say all the stuff is great, but there are some tricks to putting it together properly. It sounds like you might have nailed the back on to the bookshelves before making sure they were completely straight. The backs keep them rigid, some of their stuff has grooves to minimize how crooked you can make them by putting the backs on wrong, but for some peices, you can be off by a half-centimeter or so even if you're careful. It's not in the instructions, you just have to have put one together crooked t
Re:Does that mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:2)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:2)
Re:Does that mean... (Yes, it does!) (Score:3, Interesting)
So Varients Will Have Nordic Names? (Score:3, Funny)
Acknowledgement? (Score:5, Insightful)
That should nip the "MySQL is a replacement for Oracle under all circumstances" posts that always appear whenever MySQL is discussed on slashdot. It should, but it won't.
OIn a different note, isn't the "Ikea of databases" space already a little overcrowded? There's Firebird, McKoi, One$DB/Daffodil DB, Cloudscape, Postgres etc. Guess MySQL already pretty much own that space, so this is just a reaffirmation that they're sticking to their knitting. Doing what they do best. Very wise.
Re:Acknowledgement? (Score:5, Funny)
PostgreSQL is the Pottery Barn of the Database market.
McKoi and Cloudscape are Pier 1 and Crate and Barrel, respectively.
Wal-Mart of DBs? (Score:4, Funny)
It's the one a lot of people go to because they can't be bothered to shop around.
(Please note, the above is intended as humor. I earn my living working with SQL Server, and happen to think it's a fine product, but there are a lot of products that use it because it's Microsoft and for no other reason.)
Of course, all this begs the question, is Oracle the Target or the Sears of Databases?
The Sears hardware and appliance lines make me suspect Oracle is the Sears, but Target is bigger than Sears, which would reflect Oracle's install base better.
Re:Wal-Mart of DBs? (Score:2)
Nope. I'd say Oracle is the Bloomingtons of Databases.
Re:Wal-Mart of DBs? (Score:2)
Re:Acknowledgement? (Score:2)
PostgreSQL is the Pottery Barn of the Database market. McKoi and Cloudscape are Pier 1 and Crate and Barrel, respectively.
What I find interesting is that you would know the difference between all those places. I know I don't. :P
haven't really seen many of those posts... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's something of a straw man argument; I don't see sort of comments modded very high, probably because plenty of mods have had to deal with mysql in the business world, and the rest have seen enough critical commentary over the last few years to know not to drink the kool-aid.
I saw lots of posts modded high mentioning all of MySQL's various critical flaws, as
Re:haven't really seen many of those posts... (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if they're not modded up (sometimes they are); they're still posted. That's not a straw man argument.
Re:Acknowledgement? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Acknowledgement? (Score:2)
Like Ikea... (Score:4, Insightful)
OT: Valuable time (Score:2)
I can't speak for everything IKEA sells, but for a lot of things, the $100 (or more) I saved is more than worth the 15 minutes it took me to assemble the thing.
Kinda like Linux. Personally, the 2 or 3 extra hours I might spend fussing with Linux is still worth the $300 saved on a Windows license.
To most people I know, $100/hour or more is a damn good wage
Re:Like Ikea... (Score:2)
Trouble is, when Ethan Allan is priced the same as Ikea it's hard to justify Ikea, except "everybody goes to Ikea".
Re:Like Ikea... (Score:2)
And Smaeland, your forgot Smaeland!
Enterprise features? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Enterprise features? (Score:2)
Auto-increment is nice, but not when you have child records that you'd like to write in one transaction.
This seems like such a trivial feature to add.
You could create a table with just a single auto increment field and then insert null and get the last inserted id per connection, but it seems like such a hack to do so.
Re:Enterprise features? (Score:2)
Re:Enterprise features? (Score:2)
(As I curl into a fetal position thinking about re-indexing files...)
If mySQL is the IKEA of databases then... (Score:2)
Re:If mySQL is the IKEA of databases then... (Score:2)
Which isn't out yet.
From the point of view of anyone who wants a stable database, having these features in a preview version that the company does not recommend for general use yet means that these features are effectively absent from the product.
So, MySQL STILL does not have stored, procedures, views and triggers in a form that is usable.
Re:If mySQL is the IKEA of databases then... (Score:2, Funny)
Interesting but not entirely useful gadgets like, hmmmmm, beds, tables, chairs, couches, wardrobes, cupboards, kitchens, plates, forks, pots and pans, curtains, mirrors, carpets...?
Ikea as a business model, not a customer model... (Score:2)
None of which are attributes you want in a database product.
I think the comment is noting that Ikea is a profitable enterprise and one that is admired by the business community, but for the most part the customer
Re:Ikea as a business model, not a customer model. (Score:2)
We have some Ikea bookshelves, and the design is a little questionable, but my desk is fantastic. I had a great experience at the store itself.
On a final, slightly flamebait not
Re:Ikea as a business model, not a customer model. (Score:2)
MySQL should rename itself to some trendy nordic name. Some schmuck would probably pay more for it than Oracle or DB2
I hope they do well (Score:3, Interesting)
The 5.0 release looks to be the biggest in the history of the database. I say good luck to them. Has anybody played around with their functions implmentations?
MySQL's stance on competition is like Nintendo's. (Score:4, Insightful)
It has a lot of small pieces... (Score:2, Redundant)
Is that a good thing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is that a good thing? (Score:2)
Foot in mouth (Score:3, Interesting)
With all the ground work that MySQL has made, it is starting to be seriously considered an enterprise grade system. I can just see managers using some of these quotes to show that it's really just a toy, not a real DB like "Oracle." Would have been better just to say nothing.
Re:Foot in mouth (Score:2)
It's not a dumb statement if the enterprise space is genuinely one they don't want to be in. I imagine it could open up all kinds of potential legal issues that they may not want to have to deal with.
Re:Foot in mouth (Score:2)
MySQL ... considered an enterprise grade system. (Score:2)
Pictogram Read Me Files (Score:2)
If MySQL is the Ikea of DB market, does this mean they will start using Pictograms in their read me files?
Re:Pictogram Read Me Files (Score:2)
Futurama vs Pi-Kea (Score:2)
(robot limps off with one wheel missing and cabinet door hanging open)
Re:Futurama vs Pi-Kea (Score:2)
"Ikea Of The Database Market" (Score:3, Funny)
What's going on with MySQL? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there's interest here in building up the idea that MySQL is important. There's currently no reason to use MySQL, because other products already do what it does and better.
Re:What's going on with MySQL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. I used MySQL a few times back in the day, just because it was extremely easy to set up for extremely trivial tasks. But, IMNSHO, PostgreSQL is *the* ultimate opensource general purpose RDBMS (or O-RDBMS really). If you compare them by real-world attributes (supported features, robustness, performance, etc), PostgreSQL owns the competition, and even gives Oracle's RDBMS a good run for its money. For my purposes, this is how Oracle vs PostgreSQL stacks up right now:
Oracle: expensive, difficult and
Finally a group that "gets it" (Score:3, Insightful)
Thousands of webmasters and home-based coders don't want a competitor to Oracle, we want something that gets he job done quickly, efficiently and affordably.
This idea that every product has to become a behemoth and compete for world domination is the stake through the heart of many a project. Being content with distributing in bulk to an extremely thankful user-base is what it's all about as far as I'm concerned with MySQL. This ensures that most open-source projects will continue to be MySQL oriented, LAMP will continue to dominate the OSS Content Management Services market, and for those that determine it's just not "good enough" for what they want to do there are plenty of alernatives to expand your feature set.
K.I.S.S. is what MySQL has always been about, and I give the guy props for admitting they'll never have the desire nor ability to compete with Oracle.
Re:Finally a group that "gets it" (Score:2)
K.I.S.S. implies - at least in my book - correctness, something MySQL has never been [sql-info.de] about until maybe recently.
Re:Finally a group that "gets it" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Finally a group that "gets it" (Score:2)
Re:Finally a group that "gets it" (Score:2)
http://www.sqlite.org/ [sqlite.org] would be a better choice for these users.
Re:Finally a group that "gets it" (Score:2)
MySQL is (Score:2)
Re:MySQL is (Score:2)
Ikea always makes me think of Fight Club now. (Score:4, Funny)
MySQL - built by prisoners (Score:2)
And of course... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And of course... (Score:2)
The IKEA of database? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The IKEA of database? (Score:3)
***
mysql error-- "BJORK BJORK BJORK"
Lions vs elephants (Score:2)
You also don't want to be the one who has to clean up after the elephants, if you know what I mean.
That's odd (Score:2)
Re:That's odd (Score:3)
Neo: It's not the one?
Oracle: Sorry kid. You've got the right product, but you are waiting for something.
Neo: Like what?
Oracle: Like for this coupon to be valid. It's not good for another week.
I am Jack's snarky remark (Score:2)
So that would make them... (Score:2)
Maybe it has something to do with... (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps MySQL is saying "We aren't competing with Oracle" because Oracle has MySQL in a difficult position. Oracle just purchased InnoBase, the makers of InnoDB. They get to "renegotiate" the terms next year. MySQL may end up having to drop the InnoDB storage engine, and transactions along with it. After all, it's Oracle's option.
Re:No longer possible (Score:5, Interesting)
I host my site on a commercial service, and previously I was stuck with using Access as my DB, unless I wanted to pay big SQL Server bucks. My site crashed 5 or 6 times a day because of the load on the database.
Finally my hosting service started to offer MySQL, for free...
My site stopped crashing, and now everything loads a lot faster. (I haven't converted the entire thing over to MySQL, but enough to stop the crashing.)
If MySQL were not free, I would not have converted. If it were not on Windows, I would not have converted.
But now I see it as a real possibility for use at work.
Re:No longer possible (Score:5, Informative)
Its offered at most ASP's for next to nothing.
But just to let you know PostgreSQL 8.x now offers a native build for Windows - and is extremely powerful.
Oh for the love of crap... (Score:3, Insightful)
Give it up... I don't care if you like PG, Ruby on Rails or stink on shit for that matter. I'll use what I feel is right for my projects. The only thing this kind of "evangelism" generates is animosity towards whatever product/technology/turd you're pushing on others.
Re:Oh for the love of crap... (Score:2)
you come across as the one who has the religion, not him.
Re:No longer possible (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No longer possible (Score:2)
Great now we'll have Nofen Glocken Blop SQL trans (Score:3, Funny)
Brushing the teeth of the lion? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No longer possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No longer possible (Score:2, Funny)
Query Types (Score:5, Informative)
Bingo. I couldn't agree with you more. MySQL is fairly lightweight, easy to use for many newbies, and provides some pretty advanced features for most tasks. It has its quirks to be careful of, but ultimately does its job as a DBMS. MySQL is extremely quick on the read, but suffers from locking issues and concurrency issues on the write. So it's fantastic for the Web- which is why you see it so often on hosting providers and other similar providers- it's quick to put Web content into. It's quick to hold userIDs/passwords that aren't updated frequently. It's quick in anything where reads are heavy and writes are sparse. Service providers like it because it's not too resource intensive for read-heavy uses (web sites) and it has a great user model (store users in a database, provide per-database permissions and hide all other customers from seeing other people's databases) for many-user systems.
PostgreSQL does a fantastic job with sites needing more complexity. If you need to start with transactions, need good read/write performance, and feel that data integrity is key (generally things dealing with dollars, accounting systems, online applications, booking systems, etc) then of course the way to go really is PostgreSQL if supported. If it's not (as it is with many hosts), there's always some MySQL transactional support with row-level locking, but it almost seems like a hack. (as a note, PGSQL8.1Beta2 provides support for 'roles', but to my knowledge still doesn't hide other people's databases).
Anyway- Each has it's ups and downs. Service providers love MySQL because it's fast, cheap, easy, and keeps users seperate. PostgreSQL I've seen abused a bit too much for things it's not to be used for, and that has a huge performance hit. Why the bickering? Everyone thinks their tool is bigger
-M
InnoDB (Score:2)
MySQL isn't appropriate for anyone (Score:2)
The fact that PostgreSQL does it right, and does it the way you expect it to be done, and does it better, means that I choose it every time. The fact that only PostgreSQL ca
Re:No longer possible (Score:3, Interesting)
But the real point of this post is that making speed your only criteria does make you sound like a blind moron. A database is much more than its speed characteristics. Other considerations are: quality of documentation, richness of data types, SQL features supported, options for locking and concurrency, options for
Re:No longer possible (Score:2)
Real-world tests (Score:2)
Did you test when data was in the buffer or when the data was clean? Do you even know how to flush the buffer on both databases?
One thing I've noticed consistently is that MySQL begins to slow down as there are more processes running. That's why I never use it for the backend of a website.
Compared to PostgreSQL, which, with only 1 or 2 processes is slower than MySQL, but it begins to shine as your load approaches reality.
Re:No longer possible (Score:4, Interesting)
Still, though, mindshare is a considerable issue. There's a lot more people familiar with MySQL admin and it's quirks than Postgres. And, a lot of F/OSS uses MySQL as a data store by default. While it is not uncommon to have both PG and MySQL as a choice, if there is only one choice out of the two it is more often MySQL than PG, although counterexamples are sure to exist.
It will be interesting to see how these two projects evolve with respect to each other and how they end up positioned in a few years, now that a lot of the "first cut" elimination criteria have been eliminated (e.g. no subqueries/triggers for MySQL, no official Windows support for Postgres).
Re:No longer possible (Score:2)
Re:No longer possible (Score:3, Insightful)
The obvious counter argument is now that MySQL 5.0 supports strict data integrity, stored procedures, triggers, cursors, information schema, and database links, the benefits of Postres are gone.
But that too would be an oversimplification. Really, they're both excellent products, and which one you use is a m
Re:funny (Score:2)
Re:Good attitude (Score:2)
Re:to become the ikea of databases? (Score:2)
IKEA is the world's largest furniture seller and makes much more money than any of the more upmarket furniture sellers.
Something you generally learn pretty quickly in IT (or should) is that you make what the customer wants - no point building a Rolls Royce if the customer wants something cheap to get the shops and back.