Comments on: 14 reasons not to use MySQL or other mid-range database management systems http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/ Choices in data management and analysis Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:09:32 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-156189 Curt Monash Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:03:40 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-156189 Tom, You seem dissatisfied. Please contact us for a full refund of everything you paid us to read this free blog. ;) Tom,

You seem dissatisfied. Please contact us for a full refund of everything you paid us to read this free blog. ;)

]]> By: Tom http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-156155 Tom Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:21:25 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-156155 What a pathetic waste of my time. The whole premise is since the negative is not so bad, why look for something better? This appears to be written by somebody selling the high-end, high-cost products. Ugh. What a pathetic waste of my time. The whole premise is since the negative is not so bad, why look for something better?

This appears to be written by somebody selling the high-end, high-cost products.

Ugh.

]]> By: Infology.Ru » Blog Archive » 14 причин, по которым не следует использовать MySQL или другие СУБД среднего уровня http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-97452 Infology.Ru » Blog Archive » 14 причин, по которым не следует использовать MySQL или другие СУБД среднего уровня Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-97452 [...] Автор: Curt Monash Дата публикации оригинала: 2008-01-24 Перевод: Олег Кузьменко Источник: Блог Курта Монаша [...] [...] Автор: Curt Monash Дата публикации оригинала: 2008-01-24 Перевод: Олег Кузьменко Источник: Блог Курта Монаша [...]

]]> By: Database management system choices — mid-range-relational | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-88889 Database management system choices — mid-range-relational | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:43:54 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-88889 [...] The case against mid-range DBMS. This one generated a lot of flames. [...] [...] The case against mid-range DBMS. This one generated a lot of flames. [...]

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-70913 Curt Monash Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:37:07 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-70913 Hmm, it seems that I misunderstood my web hosting guy. MySQL isn't his biggest concern, and when he did complain, it was just about a runaway query. And I presume MySQL has tools that allow automatic shutdown of runaway queries, although I don't know whether they're in the free version a web host can reasonably be expected to have. (If not, they should be.) That said, I still suspect that the lack of transaction integrity at sites like www.blogshares.com or www.namecheap.com (the latter of which REALLY hurt me yesterday) is related to weaknesses on the underlying DBMS. And at least in the case of the former, I'm sure that's MySQL. CAM Hmm, it seems that I misunderstood my web hosting guy.

MySQL isn’t his biggest concern, and when he did complain, it was just about a runaway query. And I presume MySQL has tools that allow automatic shutdown of runaway queries, although I don’t know whether they’re in the free version a web host can reasonably be expected to have. (If not, they should be.)

That said, I still suspect that the lack of transaction integrity at sites like http://www.blogshares.com or http://www.namecheap.com (the latter of which REALLY hurt me yesterday) is related to weaknesses on the underlying DBMS. And at least in the case of the former, I’m sure that’s MySQL.

CAM

]]> By: ricky http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-69698 ricky Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:36:26 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-69698 Great post, support. Why not using ORACLE~~ Great post, support.

Why not using ORACLE~~

]]> By: Daniel Weinreb http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-69593 Daniel Weinreb Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:42:21 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-69593 At ITA Software, we switched from MySQL to Oracle for some of these same reasons: (1) There was reason to believe that MySQL had bugs when operated at very high capacity and high concurrency (this is for a large-scale highly-available OLTP application). (2) Oracle has more and better third-party tools. (3) Oracle has a bunch of high-end features that we felt we were going to need (and in fact, it turned out that we did). DataGuard is one of them. Some of our problems with MySQL may have been partially or entirely alleviated since we did our testing a few years ago. We have not gone back and re-tested. Note that none of the three points I mention above has much relevance to the case of running a basic "LAMP" web site. As was said earlier, what DBMS you used depends a lot on the job you are trying to solve. I'd also like to point out that Curt is not attacking MySQL, nor is he being an Oracle bigot. Rather, he is presenting the case for Oracle, which is quite different from actually advocating Oracle. I'd much rather hear from someone who understands both sides of a story than someone who is a unilateral advocate for a single approach. Just for the record, I'm not an Oracle bigot either. In fact, I was one of the co-founders of Object Design, so if anything I'm an object-oriented DBMS guy. However, Object Design's product, while I am extremely proud of it, was not designed for OLTP and would not be suitable for what we're doing at ITA Software. At ITA Software, we switched from MySQL to Oracle for some of these same reasons:

(1) There was reason to believe that MySQL had bugs when operated at very high capacity and high concurrency (this is for a large-scale highly-available OLTP application).

(2) Oracle has more and better third-party tools.

(3) Oracle has a bunch of high-end features that we felt we were going to need (and in fact, it turned out that we did). DataGuard is one of them.

Some of our problems with MySQL may have been partially or entirely alleviated since we did our testing a few years ago. We have not gone back and re-tested.

Note that none of the three points I mention above has much relevance to the case of running a basic “LAMP” web site. As was said earlier, what DBMS you used depends a lot on the job you are trying to solve.

I’d also like to point out that Curt is not attacking MySQL, nor is he being an Oracle bigot. Rather, he is presenting the case for Oracle, which is quite different from actually advocating Oracle. I’d much rather hear from someone who understands both sides of a story than someone who is a unilateral advocate for a single approach.

Just for the record, I’m not an Oracle bigot either. In fact, I was one of the co-founders of Object Design, so if anything I’m an object-oriented DBMS guy. However, Object Design’s product, while I am extremely proud of it, was not designed for OLTP and would not be suitable for what we’re doing at ITA Software.

]]> By: Ken Kaufman http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-69198 Ken Kaufman Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:27:23 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-69198 Good to see that religion is a live and well on both sides. Quite frankly it’s the narrow minds on both ends that get people fired. By taking up the cross and saying SQL, Oracle, DB2, or Mysql is the only way to go, you’ve closed your minds to a candy store of technology. In my group I stress the best technology for the job. Up in to last year our entire site ran on sql server for religious reasons. I led the charge to get MYSQL NDB in house because it made the most sense for an app we were writing. In the last year we’ve seen 8 DB’s come into place, 5 on sql server 3 on different mysql engines. All day long I here our open source guys tell me that mysql is better and the MS guys SQL Server is better. Truth is neither came make the claim across the board, it’s all dependant on what you’re trying to do. By the way one of our mysql installs went on Windows for a reporting application. Why did we choose windows, well in stress Windows ate Linux up. Good to see that religion is a live and well on both sides. Quite frankly it’s the narrow minds on both ends that get people fired. By taking up the cross and saying SQL, Oracle, DB2, or Mysql is the only way to go, you’ve closed your minds to a candy store of technology. In my group I stress the best technology for the job. Up in to last year our entire site ran on sql server for religious reasons. I led the charge to get MYSQL NDB in house because it made the most sense for an app we were writing. In the last year we’ve seen 8 DB’s come into place, 5 on sql server 3 on different mysql engines.

All day long I here our open source guys tell me that mysql is better and the MS guys SQL Server is better. Truth is neither came make the claim across the board, it’s all dependant on what you’re trying to do. By the way one of our mysql installs went on Windows for a reporting application. Why did we choose windows, well in stress Windows ate Linux up.

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-69196 Curt Monash Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:58:38 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-69196 Gints, Lest we go off-topic -- for more DMOZ discussion please see http://www.texttechnologies.com/category/vendors/odp-and-dmoz/ Best, CAM Gints,

Lest we go off-topic — for more DMOZ discussion please see http://www.texttechnologies.com/category/vendors/odp-and-dmoz/

Best,

CAM

]]> By: Gints Plivna http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/comment-page-1/#comment-69194 Gints Plivna Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:53:41 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/24/mysql-database/#comment-69194 Curt, To be frank I haven't much experience with warehouses so these databases are new to me. However I'll add them to my list :) Speaking about DMOZ - yea I've submitted it, but I have quite bad experience with my site - I submitted it once and then waited for more than a year, then submitted it again and after about a month it was listed. So probably there are some rules like site must exist for a while (year?) to be listed? Curt,
To be frank I haven’t much experience with warehouses so these databases are new to me. However I’ll add them to my list :)
Speaking about DMOZ – yea I’ve submitted it, but I have quite bad experience with my site – I submitted it once and then waited for more than a year, then submitted it again and after about a month it was listed. So probably there are some rules like site must exist for a while (year?) to be listed?

]]>