4 ms·

MySQL has years of proved stability, the performance is BS, one graph means nothing, it's like all the people saying they're running thousands of QPS on a serve

by Thaxll 12y ago

MySQL has years of proved stability, the performance is BS, one graph means nothing, it's like all the people saying they're running thousands of QPS on a server, you just don't know the benchmark and the type of queries running. I can run 3k SELECT in cache... I'm sure one day MariaDB will replace stock MySQL but clearly it's not ready yet. btw Oracle is doing a good job with MySQL atm.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
heavenlyhash 12y ago
My bets are all squarely on MariaDB. MySQL under Oracle is stymied by conflicts of interest. One concrete example is hashjoins, a fairly simple and efficient strategy for many general purpose workloads: MariaDB supports hashing as a join strategy since 5.3/5.5 [1] back in 2011. MySQL, to the best of my knowledge, still lacks any implementation of this. OracleDB, of course, supports hash joins. Oracle has every incentive not to implement hash joins in MySQL because hash joins are one of the performance features that they use to drive sales of OracleDB. [1] https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/what-is-mariadb-53/#join-optimizations https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/what-is-mariadb-53/#join-o...
sjwright 12y ago
> Oracle is doing a good job with MySQL atm. Obvious troll is obvious. > the performance is BS We're extremely happy with our "BS" performance.
- spudlyo 12y ago
  Obvious troll is obvious. MySQL professional here. I'm quite pleased with Oracle's 5.5 and 5.6 releases, and feel that they're doing a pretty good job. While they've not been perfect stewards, I feel they have done better than Sun -- perhaps you don't remember the fiasco that was the 5.1 release? I don't feel that this is a trollish opinion. Mark Callaghan, a MySQL luminary who has done a lot of excellent work for the community also has positive things[0] to say about Oracle's stewardship of MySQL. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7483079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7483079
  - viraptor 12y ago
    Yes, they're ok-ish. But the original claim was "MariaDB isn't a replacement for the stock version of MySQL". Actually yes, it is. It doesn't work the other way around (for example timestamp column has a different description, so dump cannot be loaded into MySQL). But you can use MariaDB in place of MySQL and there should be no performance degradation, since they come from the same codebase. Reliability was mentioned too - in that case Oracle actually failed by holding back tests. In MariaDB you can reproduce testing if you want. In MySQL not anymore.
    - jeremycole 12y ago
      No, not really. MariaDB is completely dependent on Oracle and Percona. While they are doing some good work, they are by no means a complete and independent fork, nor do they have the resources to be. MariaDB is also impacted by the lack of tests, they are absolutely not making replacements for all those tests, and they continue to pull code from upstream. So, same problem there.
      - sjwright 12y ago
        This might have been true in 2011-12, but today MariaDB is demonstrably NOT dependent on Oracle or Percona. If both disappeared tomorrow, it would still continue. The fact that they continue to "pull" some code is because they're not idiots, and aren't going to duplicate effort. As far as I'm aware, they are now being very selective about what they pull. Calling Oracle an "upstream" is a joke. They aren't publishing atomic changesets, which also means the Oracle fork of MySQL is no longer a morally Open Source software program. MariaDB is NOT impacted by some vaporous lack of tests. They are building tests for every change they're making. As for the tests privately held by Oracle, well, those tests don't help anyone because they're not public and don't enjoy public scrutiny. Who knows if they're even running them?
      - sjwright 12y ago
        > nor do they have the resources to be. They have received large investments from companies like Intel, and have been granted extensive engineering (and probably financial) help from companies like Google and Facebook. Probably many others. And they have most of the MySQL brains-trust in their employ, Monty most famously. I don't know how anyone could argue they're under-resourced for the task of maintaining and improving a mature product. Compare that with Oracle, who pulls dangerous stunts like this: http://ronaldbradford.com/blog/when-is-a-crashing-mysql-bug-not-a-bug-2012-08-15/ http://ronaldbradford.com/blog/when-is-a-crashing-mysql-bug-...

by Thaxll 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

heavenlyhash 12y ago

My bets are all squarely on MariaDB. MySQL under Oracle is stymied by conflicts of interest. One concrete example is hashjoins, a fairly simple and efficient strategy for many general purpose workloads: MariaDB supports hashing as a join strategy since 5.3/5.5 [1] back in 2011. MySQL, to the best of my knowledge, still lacks any implementation of this. OracleDB, of course, supports hash joins. Oracle has every incentive not to implement hash joins in MySQL because hash joins are one of the performance features that they use to drive sales of OracleDB. [1] https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/what-is-mariadb-53/#join-optimizations https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/what-is-mariadb-53/#join-o...

sjwright 12y ago

> Oracle is doing a good job with MySQL atm. Obvious troll is obvious. > the performance is BS We're extremely happy with our "BS" performance.

spudlyo 12y ago
Obvious troll is obvious. MySQL professional here. I'm quite pleased with Oracle's 5.5 and 5.6 releases, and feel that they're doing a pretty good job. While they've not been perfect stewards, I feel they have done better than Sun -- perhaps you don't remember the fiasco that was the 5.1 release? I don't feel that this is a trollish opinion. Mark Callaghan, a MySQL luminary who has done a lot of excellent work for the community also has positive things[0] to say about Oracle's stewardship of MySQL. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7483079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7483079
- viraptor 12y ago
  Yes, they're ok-ish. But the original claim was "MariaDB isn't a replacement for the stock version of MySQL". Actually yes, it is. It doesn't work the other way around (for example timestamp column has a different description, so dump cannot be loaded into MySQL). But you can use MariaDB in place of MySQL and there should be no performance degradation, since they come from the same codebase. Reliability was mentioned too - in that case Oracle actually failed by holding back tests. In MariaDB you can reproduce testing if you want. In MySQL not anymore.
  - jeremycole 12y ago
    No, not really. MariaDB is completely dependent on Oracle and Percona. While they are doing some good work, they are by no means a complete and independent fork, nor do they have the resources to be. MariaDB is also impacted by the lack of tests, they are absolutely not making replacements for all those tests, and they continue to pull code from upstream. So, same problem there.
    - sjwright 12y ago
      This might have been true in 2011-12, but today MariaDB is demonstrably NOT dependent on Oracle or Percona. If both disappeared tomorrow, it would still continue. The fact that they continue to "pull" some code is because they're not idiots, and aren't going to duplicate effort. As far as I'm aware, they are now being very selective about what they pull. Calling Oracle an "upstream" is a joke. They aren't publishing atomic changesets, which also means the Oracle fork of MySQL is no longer a morally Open Source software program. MariaDB is NOT impacted by some vaporous lack of tests. They are building tests for every change they're making. As for the tests privately held by Oracle, well, those tests don't help anyone because they're not public and don't enjoy public scrutiny. Who knows if they're even running them?
    - sjwright 12y ago
      > nor do they have the resources to be. They have received large investments from companies like Intel, and have been granted extensive engineering (and probably financial) help from companies like Google and Facebook. Probably many others. And they have most of the MySQL brains-trust in their employ, Monty most famously. I don't know how anyone could argue they're under-resourced for the task of maintaining and improving a mature product. Compare that with Oracle, who pulls dangerous stunts like this: http://ronaldbradford.com/blog/when-is-a-crashing-mysql-bug-not-a-bug-2012-08-15/ http://ronaldbradford.com/blog/when-is-a-crashing-mysql-bug-...