Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Databases Open Source Oracle

Drizzle's Future Moving To Rackspace? 41

abartels writes "It seems like there's been nothing but bad news and resignations coming from Oracle since it finally managed to close the deal on Sun. Finally, there's good news in that Drizzle seems to have a bright future ahead. It just isn't with Oracle, but with the Rackspace Cloud."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Drizzle's Future Moving To Rackspace?

Comments Filter:
  • --Insert Snoop Dogg line here--
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, 2010 @01:35PM (#31440404)

    Sure, the Drizzle crew has made some minor changes, but Drizzle is essentially still MySQL. That means it still has many of MySQL's many, many flaws and thousands of unfixed bugs.

    Their work is interesting and innovative, but they should have built it off of PostgreSQL or even SQLite, rather than MySQL. I'm well aware of the developer connections with MySQL, but that's no reason to continue using what should be a dead project due to its lack of quality.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mmsimanga ( 775213 )

      but that's no reason to continue using what should be a dead project due to its lack of quality.

      Maybe the user base of millions upon millions of web sites is enough motivation to continue developing developing the "low quality" project.

    • by krow ( 129804 ) * <<brian> <at> <>> on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:19PM (#31442030) Homepage Journal


      Drizzle is transactional by default.

      Bad data? We don't insert it, we toss an error (and if we don't in some cases, it is a bug).

      We purposely went after the issues in the MySQL gotchas list when we began (

      Our DDL? Soon will be transactional. Our data dictionary is federated out to engines, so unlike MySQL in our system the engine owns the definition so you can't end up in a situation where the engine is off from the definition.

      I wouldn't make the assumption that because we have a similar ancestor that we are the same at all. It would be like assuming Postgres and Ingres are the same (which they are most certainly not).

      When I first started doing the rewrite I considered Postgres (and spoke to a number of the developers of it at the time). In the first year I went back and forth in my head on that decision. There would have been a lot of things that would have made PG a better starting point. By the time we reached 5.1 the MySQL codebase was junk. Postgres would have made for a good decision but there were three drawbacks.

      1) Postgres is C and not C++. I find that I can write code in C++ nowadays much faster then I can in C (and it comes out just as fast, the C++ "is slow" is an archaic view).

      2) Postgres is not designed to use threads. I prefer to work with threads over processes (and there is a lot of good and bad with both concepts).

      3) Sun wouldn't have paid for it ;)

      I wouldn't consider SQLite. It is neither type safe, not concurrent. It is a great database, but it doesn't solve any of my needs. I did think about Firebird for a bit, but while I know the MySQL and Postgres codebase, I don't know the Firebird code at all.


      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheSunborn ( 68004 )

        I am pretty sure that PostgreSQL uses thread from version 8.0. Was that not one of the changes they made to improve the quality of their windows implementation?

        But more interesting: Have Drizzle fixed the problem with views and the query optimizer. Each time I try to use views in mysql, i end up with such slow queries(Something like 100 times slower) that i have to replace the view with the query that created the view. The problem seems to be that if I select from a view and then also filter the result from

        • by krow ( 129804 ) *


          I am not sure about the Windows version, but I know the Unix version is still process based. In my opinion, one of the principle advantages in this is that they can use functions which can leak/die/etc and not have to worry about it taking out the server. This is what allowed Apache to handle so many unstable languages/modules.

          The problem with Views in MySQL is that they frequently materialized, aka in many queries the database chooses to generate a full table of the data and do the JOIN (and in some qu

          • But mysql don't really support materialized views.

            Have they really implemented their non materialized using materialized ???

            But the thing i really don't understand about implementing views is: Why not just implement them with something similary to string substitute, so each time a query references a view, the view is substituted with the select that generated the view.

            That way select * from MyView where ViewField=42 would be translated to something like
            select * from (select * from TableWhichMyViewUsed wher

            • by krow ( 129804 ) *


              MySQL "materializes" a view, but yes it does not have "Materialized Views".

              For some views you can do a simple substitution, but not in all cases (for instance, SELECT * FROM A GROUP BY()). In that case you need the end result before you can execute the query.

              I had little to do with the VIEW implementation, so I can't really say much about how it was designed. I am not crazy about how it works either.


        • by nconway ( 86640 )

          I am pretty sure that PostgreSQL uses thread from version 8.0.

          That is not true. There is an auxiliary thread used for signal handling on Windows (which is somewhat hacky), but the basic model of one process per client connection is unchanged, and applies to Postgres on both Windows and Unix.

      • I did think about Firebird for a bit, but while I know the MySQL and Postgres codebase, I don't know the Firebird code at all.

        You could have asked Jim for a personal hands-on tour of the Firebird codebase... And the Falcon storage engine looks kinda like a C++ version of the Firebird C internals. :-)

      • 1) Postgres is C and not C++. I find that I can write code in C++ nowadays much faster then I can in C (and it comes out just as fast, the C++ "is slow" is an archaic view).

        Buh? Since when has anybody said that? Ugly, yes. Byzantine, yes. Convoluted, hell yes. But slow? No, of course not.

  • by moderatorrater ( 1095745 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @01:43PM (#31440534)
    My understanding was that Drizzle was created partly to get it out from under Sun and other corporations. Seems like saying it doesn't have a future with Oracle is like saying that postgres doesn't have a future with Oracle.

    It will be too bad if Drizzle's the only place where exciting development takes place on the MySQL base. Say what you will about MySQL, there are a lot of shops that rely on it and would love to see it come closer to parity with other database programs.
  • PostreSQL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aztracker1 ( 702135 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @01:55PM (#31440724) Homepage
    Queue the mass migration... Then again there's Firebird, or all the document (Couch, Mongo, Divan) and object NoSQL databases too.
  • Since the mid 90's I've been a user of FOSS projects and products for business use - contributing where and when I can - and I've been a long time customer of Rackspace since 2001 and an employee since Jan 2007... I must say I'm thrilled by the moves my company has been making to not only be a major consumer of Open Source products but also now a major contributor to such projects. From open Cloud architecture APIs and API specifications (enabling anyone to build their own Cloud hosting systems) to big-data focused projects like Cassandra and, of course, Drizzle.

    Sorry to gush's just that so many companies tend to nominally use Open Source to gain market share and free development help initially and then begin to restrict documentation, support and even access to new features in a dual licensing scheme. The list of names of those that "SCO-ify" their Open Source strategy is too long and sad to mention. So, please cut me some slack as I revel in the direction we're heading at Rackspace -- I hope more companies will jump on this trend to raise the sea level for us all.

    To the Drizzle team: welcome! Very happy to have you onboard and look forward to your continued contributions to the community.

    Note: my comments and gushing are my own!

    • by cdhgold ( 968182 )
      As a racker since 2006 I also 2nd the sentiments above. This is part of what makes Rackspace and great place for a linux geek to be
  • Yeah the weater is like that here too...

    At least its in the high 30's and the snow it melting fast. (Not so good for people downstream though)

  • by dfdashh ( 1060546 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:01PM (#31441716)
    Background reading: one of the Drizzle guys who is moving over to Rackspace has a pretty good blog post [] on the move.

    Although Drizzle is a really stripped down version of MySQL at the moment, it seems like the developers are trying to make it into what they thought MySQL should have been in the first place: a simple, modular database for web applications. From their FAQ:

    What is the goal?
    A micro-kernel that we then extend to add what we need. All additions come through interfaces that can be compiled/loaded in as needed. The target for the project is web infrastructure backend and cloud components.

    Rackspace sounds like a perfect environment for them to fine tune their project under real world loads. Good on 'em.

  • If this'll make Monty STFU and end his grief, then I'm all for it.

    I just don't understand why not PostgreSQL, could someone explain why is mysql better when you provide simple hosting plans? PostgreSQL does seem to have an edge as a RDBMS, so are mysql databases more manageable per user or what's the reason?

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972