4 ms·

It was my impression that many distros alias mariadb as mysql because it's the capital-f Free version so when you install the default distro mysql you are actua

It was my impression that many distros alias mariadb as mysql because it's the capital-f Free version so when you install the default distro mysql you are actually installing mariadb. Edit: in fact I think that if you search "default" on this page these are all the distros that do this. https://mariadb.com/kb/en/distributions-which-include-mariadb/ https://mariadb.com/kb/en/distributions-which-include-mariad...

mdasen 5y ago
I think this was more common years ago. MySQL and MariaDB have diverged more in the years since which means that people want to know which they're installing. For example, RedHat Enterprise Linux used MariaDB as the default in RHEL 7, but RHEL8 splits them back out. https://mariadb.com/kb/en/incompatibilities-and-feature-differences-between-mariadb-107-and-mysql-80/ https://mariadb.com/kb/en/incompatibilities-and-feature-diff... While they're still quite similar and many of the differences might not be something that you hit, there are enough differences that it should be explicit.
- awill 5y ago
  This was really surprising. Back when RHEL 7 launched, it really looked like MariaDB was going to take over from MySQL. It doesn't look that way anymore. I suspect the reason is that Maria diverged too much, and people didn't want the risk of using something that they couldn't migrate away from. Regardless, where possible, I use non-relational. When relational is required, I use Postgres.
  - Kinrany 5y ago
    Can you link any good arguments for defaulting to non-relational?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      Simpler, more flexible data model along with speed / storage efficiency (you’re not updating many indexes so writes are much simpler). Your transaction layer data model should be as flat as possible; enrich with relational data in your analytics systems and data warehouses to optimize query speed.
      - endymi0n 5y ago
        Beware however that this flexibility and initial ease is more often than not a slippery slope into chaos. This article put it really well in my opionion: There are no schemaless databases, just the ones with an explicit schema and the ones with their schema defined in a couple hundred places in code. One of them is slightly easier to start out with, the other to evolve, maintain and communicate (double serving as self-documentation) across multiple engineers. https://orangematter.solarwinds.com/2015/02/24/schemaless-databases-dont-exist/ https://orangematter.solarwinds.com/2015/02/24/schemaless-da...
        PeterCorless 5y ago
        The Internet is usually not presented to you in real-time in 3rd normalized form. There are times when you can control the data sources, but many times you will be presented with data in real time, and you cannot spend the time to normalize everything. A lot depends on the data you have, and the data you anticipate. If you have well-controlled data sources, sure, 3rd normalized form and tables with JOINs. But sometimes you have to deal with the data you're handed. Denormalized and only, at best, semi-structured. Then it's time for NoSQL. i.e., choose the right tool for the data you have and the queries you need. Don't try to force-fit the data to a tool just because you're used to it. Analogy: use a hammer for a nail, and a screwdriver for screws.
        Aeolun 5y ago
        To be fair, most data is relational.
        5y ago
- cptaj 5y ago
  But search queries of everyone using either DB on a day-to-day, high level development basis will probably just search for mysql and get better results. This is definitely what drives this google trend
cblconfederate 5y ago
mysql is also trending down
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Don't understand why it's taking this long since we have had a far superior free software alternative for many many years now...postgres
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    One needs good enough, not superior
  - TylerE 5y ago
    MySQL was popualar for the same reason PHP4/5 was popular. It let lazy "coders" churn out simple brochure sites without having to think.
  - StevePerkins 5y ago
    Depends on your use case. PostgreSQL is better if you actually USE any of its more advanced features (e.g. PL/pgSQL, JSON support, etc). But if your data model is simple and your need for scale is high, then MySQL is FAR easier to cluster and scale. Especially if you're working with Percona or another MySQL variant.
  - chillfox 5y ago
    Last I checked PostgreSQL still didn't do clustering as well as MariaDB. But sure, it is better with JSON data.
ComputerGuru 5y ago
FreeBSD is odd: you install it with `pkg install mariadb-{server,client}` but you start it with `service MySQL-server start`. (The package name is moderated by the FreeBSD ports team, but the port (MariaDB) installs its service and gives itself whatever service name it desires.)

mdasen 5y ago

I think this was more common years ago. MySQL and MariaDB have diverged more in the years since which means that people want to know which they're installing. For example, RedHat Enterprise Linux used MariaDB as the default in RHEL 7, but RHEL8 splits them back out. https://mariadb.com/kb/en/incompatibilities-and-feature-differences-between-mariadb-107-and-mysql-80/ https://mariadb.com/kb/en/incompatibilities-and-feature-diff... While they're still quite similar and many of the differences might not be something that you hit, there are enough differences that it should be explicit.

awill 5y ago
This was really surprising. Back when RHEL 7 launched, it really looked like MariaDB was going to take over from MySQL. It doesn't look that way anymore. I suspect the reason is that Maria diverged too much, and people didn't want the risk of using something that they couldn't migrate away from. Regardless, where possible, I use non-relational. When relational is required, I use Postgres.
- Kinrany 5y ago
  Can you link any good arguments for defaulting to non-relational?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Simpler, more flexible data model along with speed / storage efficiency (you’re not updating many indexes so writes are much simpler). Your transaction layer data model should be as flat as possible; enrich with relational data in your analytics systems and data warehouses to optimize query speed.
    - endymi0n 5y ago
      Beware however that this flexibility and initial ease is more often than not a slippery slope into chaos. This article put it really well in my opionion: There are no schemaless databases, just the ones with an explicit schema and the ones with their schema defined in a couple hundred places in code. One of them is slightly easier to start out with, the other to evolve, maintain and communicate (double serving as self-documentation) across multiple engineers. https://orangematter.solarwinds.com/2015/02/24/schemaless-databases-dont-exist/ https://orangematter.solarwinds.com/2015/02/24/schemaless-da...
      - PeterCorless 5y ago
        The Internet is usually not presented to you in real-time in 3rd normalized form. There are times when you can control the data sources, but many times you will be presented with data in real time, and you cannot spend the time to normalize everything. A lot depends on the data you have, and the data you anticipate. If you have well-controlled data sources, sure, 3rd normalized form and tables with JOINs. But sometimes you have to deal with the data you're handed. Denormalized and only, at best, semi-structured. Then it's time for NoSQL. i.e., choose the right tool for the data you have and the queries you need. Don't try to force-fit the data to a tool just because you're used to it. Analogy: use a hammer for a nail, and a screwdriver for screws.
        Aeolun 5y ago
        To be fair, most data is relational.
        5y ago
cptaj 5y ago
But search queries of everyone using either DB on a day-to-day, high level development basis will probably just search for mysql and get better results. This is definitely what drives this google trend

cblconfederate 5y ago

mysql is also trending down

datavirtue 5y ago
Don't understand why it's taking this long since we have had a far superior free software alternative for many many years now...postgres
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  One needs good enough, not superior
- TylerE 5y ago
  MySQL was popualar for the same reason PHP4/5 was popular. It let lazy "coders" churn out simple brochure sites without having to think.
- StevePerkins 5y ago
  Depends on your use case. PostgreSQL is better if you actually USE any of its more advanced features (e.g. PL/pgSQL, JSON support, etc). But if your data model is simple and your need for scale is high, then MySQL is FAR easier to cluster and scale. Especially if you're working with Percona or another MySQL variant.
- chillfox 5y ago
  Last I checked PostgreSQL still didn't do clustering as well as MariaDB. But sure, it is better with JSON data.

ComputerGuru 5y ago

FreeBSD is odd: you install it with `pkg install mariadb-{server,client}` but you start it with `service MySQL-server start`. (The package name is moderated by the FreeBSD ports team, but the port (MariaDB) installs its service and gives itself whatever service name it desires.)