5 ms·

> (up to 2GB of RAM and 2 CPU cores) Except that this particular market segment is almost certainly better off with an open source DB. Also: why is MySQL alwa

by lukev 16y ago

> (up to 2GB of RAM and 2 CPU cores) Except that this particular market segment is almost certainly better off with an open source DB. Also: why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons? MySQL just doesn't cut it in many important ways. Not to say it's not useful for some tasks, but it really isn't in the same league as the major databases, at all.

jasonlotito 16y ago
> why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons? It's explained why in the article. > As an advocate for the DB2 team I often hear people ask, “Why would you use DB2 when MySQL is free and Open Source?”.
- lukev 16y ago
  Well, yes, he's complaining about the same thing I am. But even in the OS world, MySQL is not the only game in town. Postgres, obviously, is probably the biggest contender, but there's a bunch of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_source_database_management_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_source_database_m...
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    The problem is, the question is both wrong and right at the same time. > Why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons? Why is it? What put it in that position? How did the other databases "fail" to become that reference implementation? I'm pretty sure it's not because MySQL is an easy comparison. The problem is people use the question in a different context. As in, why didn't the person use <insert random database here>. The answer to this question is easy: because MySQL is so popular.
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      If PostgreSQL changed their name, perhaps they'd be more popular. It wouldn't stop me if it were the technically best choice, but I'd certainly cringe to have to recommend "post grehs queue ell -- no hold on let me spell it for you..." to a manager who wasn't already familiar with it. I don't understand how this escapes people who obviously want other people to use their software. MySQL sounds too Fisher-Price, but is passable at least. Now "Oracle": that sounds awesomely powerful. And "DB2" sounds awesomely IBMish.
      - hvs 16y ago
        This is totally off-topic, but I've always loved IBM's naming conventions: OS/360, z/OS, OS/2, DB2, etc. It just has this feeling of "Are systems are built out of titanium and iron." The reality is obviously different, but it is definitely a naming style from a different generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products
SkyMarshal 16y ago
That struck me as odd too, I would have expected a comparison of DB2 to PostgreSQL instead. But his target audience is web developers and web startups, where MySQL has probably more mindshare.
digitallogic 16y ago
Saddly MySQL has become the Paris Hilton of open source databases. It is famous for no other reason then the fact that it is famous.
- mseebach 16y ago
  Not quite. Around 10-12 years ago when dynamic web-programming for the masses started to take off, nothing, and especially not Postgres, paralleled MySQL in low barrier to entry.

by lukev 16y ago

jasonlotito 16y ago

> why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons? It's explained why in the article. > As an advocate for the DB2 team I often hear people ask, “Why would you use DB2 when MySQL is free and Open Source?”.

lukev 16y ago
Well, yes, he's complaining about the same thing I am. But even in the OS world, MySQL is not the only game in town. Postgres, obviously, is probably the biggest contender, but there's a bunch of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_source_database_management_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_source_database_m...
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  The problem is, the question is both wrong and right at the same time. > Why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons? Why is it? What put it in that position? How did the other databases "fail" to become that reference implementation? I'm pretty sure it's not because MySQL is an easy comparison. The problem is people use the question in a different context. As in, why didn't the person use <insert random database here>. The answer to this question is easy: because MySQL is so popular.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    If PostgreSQL changed their name, perhaps they'd be more popular. It wouldn't stop me if it were the technically best choice, but I'd certainly cringe to have to recommend "post grehs queue ell -- no hold on let me spell it for you..." to a manager who wasn't already familiar with it. I don't understand how this escapes people who obviously want other people to use their software. MySQL sounds too Fisher-Price, but is passable at least. Now "Oracle": that sounds awesomely powerful. And "DB2" sounds awesomely IBMish.
    - hvs 16y ago
      This is totally off-topic, but I've always loved IBM's naming conventions: OS/360, z/OS, OS/2, DB2, etc. It just has this feeling of "Are systems are built out of titanium and iron." The reality is obviously different, but it is definitely a naming style from a different generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products

SkyMarshal 16y ago

That struck me as odd too, I would have expected a comparison of DB2 to PostgreSQL instead. But his target audience is web developers and web startups, where MySQL has probably more mindshare.

digitallogic 16y ago

Saddly MySQL has become the Paris Hilton of open source databases. It is famous for no other reason then the fact that it is famous.

mseebach 16y ago
Not quite. Around 10-12 years ago when dynamic web-programming for the masses started to take off, nothing, and especially not Postgres, paralleled MySQL in low barrier to entry.