Re: Are we mischaracterising mysql? Re: 12 Silver Bullets - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
From | Derek Rodner |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Are we mischaracterising mysql? Re: 12 Silver Bullets |
Date | |
Msg-id | 51494DB187D98F4C88DBEBF1F5F6D423022F9964@edb06.mail01.enterprisedb.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Are we mischaracterising mysql? Re: 12 Silver Bullets ("Derek Rodner" <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com>) |
List | pgsql-advocacy |
This is from a recent article in RegDeveloper where they even admit that they are not designed for enterprise applications... ================================ They use it for small applications, at the departmental level, for the newer web-based applications - in other words, in all sorts of innovative ways that are well suited to MySQL's particular strengths. But they are not yet using it for the "traditional" enterprise database application workloads. How can I be so sure of this? Because I'm quoting Steve Curry, the director of corporate communications at MySQL who really ought to know: "I think we'll all agree that MySQL is not a 'traditional' enterprise database - we never have been and aren't trying to suddenly become one now. "We don't compete head-to-head against Oracle, DB2, Teradata, etc. If users are looking to build that type of higher-end data warehouse/OLTP/client-server application, then they've probably selected one of the traditional vendors or one of the open-source alternatives that are trying to directly emulate them. That's just not us - we're carving out new, different ground that is not based on replacing existing applications but creating new complementary online ones." ================================= And the link: http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/03/18/mysql_enterprise_fit/ Derek M. Rodner Director, Product Strategy EnterpriseDB Corporation 732.331.1333 office 484.252.1943 cell www.enterprisedb.com -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Derek Rodner Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:29 PM To: Ron Mayer; Simon Riggs; pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Are we mischaracterising mysql? Re: 12 Silver Bullets Ron, Talk about spin... I just read the Sabre case study that you pointed out. It is interesting how they portray it because I sat in a case study at Gartner's Open Source Summit that was given by the guys at Travelocity. What the case study DOESN'T tell you is that NONE of the transactions run through MySQL. The entire backend for actual transactions runs on Oracle. When you go to Travelocity and do all your searches, that is pulling data from MySQL. The MySQL data is updated from Oracle back end databases. When you decide to purchase, the system then switches to Oracle where all the real work happens. MySQL is used for read-only work at Sabre. Derek M. Rodner Director, Product Strategy EnterpriseDB Corporation 732.331.1333 office 484.252.1943 cell www.enterprisedb.com -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ron Mayer Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:12 PM To: Simon Riggs; pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] Are we mischaracterising mysql? Re: 12 Silver Bullets Simon Riggs wrote: > > - MySQL's feature set corresponds to ...: > mostly read-only, simple SQL, design implemented by developers, so no > DBA required. > > - PostgreSQL's feature set works for "difficult/complex" web apps. Really. It looks to me like MySQL's niche that postgresql doesn't yet touch is in the most complex, most insert/update intensive applications. The two reference MySQL projects that first come to my mind are the Sabre airline system[1]; and Google Adwords[2,3]. Both extremely update intensive applications - far beyond what I see PostgreSQL being used for. In contrast - I see postgresql's successes mostly in simple (single monolithic instances) and read-mostly applications (data mining like Genentech's case study on the web site). While I totally agree with Josh that Oracle's $7.2Billion database revenue [4] is way more interesting than MySQL's $0.05Billion; it seems a bit odd to see people suggesting that MySQL is for simpler and read-mostly systems; when it seems the most complex and most update intensive applications are the niche that it has that PostgreSQL doesn't yet. What am I missing? [1] http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/downloads/Sabre-HP-MySQL-case-study .pdf [2] http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2005/12/lets-get-real-database.html [3] http://zurlocker.typepad.com/theopenforce/2005/12/googles_use_of_.html [4] http://www.sqlmanager.net/en/news/sql/1189 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
pgsql-advocacy by date: