By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,854 Members | 1,912 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,854 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

DB2 v MySql

P: n/a
Hello,

I have a client (customer) who asked the question : "Why would I buy and
use UDB, when MySql is free?"

I had to say I was stunned. I have no experience with MySql, so I was
left sort of stammering and sputtering, and managed to pull out something
I heard a couple of years back - that there was no real transaction
safety in MySql. In flight transactions could be lost.

I felt like SUCH a dork.

I'm bracing for a deluge of flames and/or admonitions, but I'm still
going to ask:

What are the deficiencies of MySql that I and my clients should be aware
of? There are loads of people pushing MySql, and I don't want to get
into a religious war with ANYONE. I just need a decent answer to the
question I was asked. :)

TIA

Mairhtin
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
39 Replies


P: n/a
Mairhtin O'Feannag wrote:
I have a client (customer) who asked the question : "Why would I buy and
use UDB, when MySql is free?"


If I was asked this question - I would start from here - just to familiarize
myself with that beast:

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg247093.pdf

Jan M. Nelken
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
Is there a reason why you're NOT considering MySql? For example, if the
system is mission-critical and the belief is that DB2 is more
field-tested/stable and enterprise-feature-rich, and the support from
IBM exceeds that of third-party MySql support, then this may justify
Db2. Perhaps the solution you offer leverages some DB2
knowledge/experience. Again, none of this is a blunt "A is better than
B because..." argument, but if the customer has any business savvy,
they may appreciate your honesty, and that not all business decisions
can be made purely on technical merit.

Also, this article may be of interest:
http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743/1954?pf=true

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
"Mairhtin O'Feannag" <ir********@rocketmail.com> writes:
What are the deficiencies of MySql that I and my clients should be aware
of? There are loads of people pushing MySql, and I don't want to get
into a religious war with ANYONE. I just need a decent answer to the
question I was asked. :)


You might find it worthwhile to look at the following:

<http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html>

It is also rather stupid to claim that "MySQL is free" when their
price sheets declare otherwise. MySQL(tm) is certainly _not_ free
when their web site <https://order.mysql.com/> indicates:

"MySQL Database Server

The world's most popular open source database. Fast, stable,
compact.

Starting at $595.00"
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
A VAX is virtually a computer, but not quite.
Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
Mairhtin O'Feannag wrote:
What are the deficiencies of MySql that I and my clients should be aware of?


Well, in my opinion this is a product that was at the right place at
the right time - and surged in popularity along with php, etc a few
years ago. It can be simple to use, but has such tremendous
disadvantages that many developers are now leaving it for its open
source rivals (postgresql & firebird). Anyhow, here's my $0.02.

1. integrity problems - of various types:
a. tons of silent errors in which data is truncated, converted,
etc without an exception passed to the application. Many of these are
documented widely, including at: //sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
b. the leadership at this company has stated for years that 99%
of the developers out there don't need transactions, subselects, views,
etc. This was misleading from the begining - and they're still rushing
to quickly add these basics from 20 years ago into their product. In
the meanwhile, many of these newly-added features are still very beta -
such as the way that they get transactions through a completely
separate storage library (innodb). Use of this critical component
drastically reduces performance, and isn't completely integrated into
mysql.

2. performance issues:
a. it's very much oriented towards read-only transactional
queries (and it can be very fast at this). However, not many
applications meet that need except perhaps content management. It has
a much more difficult time with a balanced workload than most other
products in this category.
b. there are almost no reporting/dss features: no partitioning,
no bitmap indexes, no parallelism, etc. This means that a 2-way
oracle/db2 server using partitioning/mdc could easily out-perform an
8-way server running mysql. And these types of queries are becoming
increasinly common within operational/transaction applications - so
this isn't just a data warehousing issue.

3. availability & reliability:
a. mysql can maintain reasonable availability numbers - but lacks
a credible clustering offering for higher numbers.
b. given its silent errors, and penchant for associated data
corruption problems - it's entirely possible for mysql to stay up and
continue to serve data - in spite of the data being corrupted.

4. cost:
a. the licensing cost for mysql is about the same as any other
entry-level database. I think the only really inexpensive situation is
when you need quite a few small open-source databases. Online backups
are an additional cost,.

5. portability:
a. the missing features in mysql (views, etc) often require that
applications are written differently than if they were to be written
for a more full-featured database. This limitation results in
application complexity, database complexity and performance impacts.
Should the application need to be moved to another database for
improved performance, it may also require a more significant rewrite
than if it was built for a different database product.
b. lack of ansi compliance: mysql ab has shown a considerable
disregard for ANSI SQL standards (uses '#' instead of '--' for
comments, etc, etc). MySQL is probably the least compliant RDBMS I've
seen since the 80s.

6. Consistency: since there are so many data management jobs that
mysql can't do - that db2, oracle, etc can - it's not unlikely that a
shop that uses mysql will also have to use a second database as well.
As the number of database products grows - so does the labor cost to
maintain and develop for them. And since the entry-level versions of
db2, etc are very inexpensive (can be less than MySQL), a savings can
often be made on the labor side by just going with db2.

Right now, MySQL does have a few things going for it - primarily
marketing & momentum. It always gets press when open source databases
are mentioned, and most folks have heard of it. And it is improving
rapidly, though I suspect that it's years away from delivering what we
take for granted from most other products in this category.

Probably a bigger threat to db2, oracle, and sql server are Postgresql
& Firebird. Both are free and reasonably featured. There's still a
lot that DB2 & Oracle offer over these two products, but the sell has
to be harder if you're talking small departmental servers, embedded
databases, etc.

kenfar

Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
In article <60************@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>, Christopher
Browne (cb******@acm.org) says...

It is also rather stupid to claim that "MySQL is free" when their
price sheets declare otherwise. MySQL(tm) is certainly _not_ free
when their web site <https://order.mysql.com/> indicates:

"MySQL Database Server

The world's most popular open source database. Fast, stable,
compact.

Starting at $595.00"


Weel, it is free as long as you don't have a problem with the GPL
license.

Check http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html for a
full description.
Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
Gert van der Kooij <ge**@invalid.nl> writes:
In article <60************@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>, Christopher
Browne (cb******@acm.org) says...

It is also rather stupid to claim that "MySQL is free" when their
price sheets declare otherwise. MySQL(tm) is certainly _not_ free
when their web site <https://order.mysql.com/> indicates:

"MySQL Database Server

The world's most popular open source database. Fast, stable,
compact.

Starting at $595.00"


Weel, it is free as long as you don't have a problem with the GPL
license.

Check http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html for a
full description.


There's considerable nonsequitor there.

That is, what does it mean to "not have a problem with the GPL
license"? Actually, there are necessarily some problems with the GPL,
as if there were _no_ problems with it, they would not have felt the
need to create the "Library GPL" as an alternative for people to use.

But what MySQL AB _really_ mean is that if you're using it, they
suggest you consider buying a commercial license if you have any
concerns about "safety."

http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/

"In their simplest form, the following are general licensing guidelines:

* If your software is licensed under either the GPL-compatible
Free Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation
or approved by OSI, then use our GPL licensed version.

* If you distribute a proprietary application in any way, and you
are not licensing and distributing your source code under GPL,
you need to purchase a commercial license of MySQL

If you are unsure, we recommend that you buy our cost effective
commercial licenses. That is the safest solution. Licensing
questions can submitted online for our advice, and we encourage you
to refer to the Free Software Foundation or a lawyer as appropriate."

I'm not certain what they intend might be considered "unsafe," but
frankly, it doesn't matter, because their recommendation is that if
there is any kind of uncertainty, you should be buying licenses.

There most certainly _is_ a big whack of uncertainty as to what rules
might apply to the sort of internal departmental application that
would fit well with MySQL.

The people I work for have a Bugzilla instance that presently runs
against a MySQL database; there's no ambiguity there since Bugzilla is
licensed under a suitable "free software" license, and nobody there is
making any changes to Bugzilla.

They used to run RT (a problem tracker) against MySQL; they helped
fund the port of RT/3 to PostgreSQL because of the uncertainties
surrounding cases where there would be a need to write custom reports
to do additional analysis. There is most definitely some uncertainty
as to the licensing of those reports, and the implications on how
licensing requirements would fall out of that.

I don't know if MySQL AB would require buying a license under that
sort of circumstance; what I do know is that:

"If you are unsure, we recommend that you buy our cost effective
commercial licenses. That is the safest solution."
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html
A VAX is virtually a computer, but not quite.
Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
Kenfar,

"kenfar" <ke******@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:11*********************@c13g2000cwb.goog legroups.com...
Mairhtin O'Feannag wrote:
What are the deficiencies of MySql that I and my clients should be aware
of?

.... the meanwhile, many of these newly-added features are still very beta -
such as the way that they get transactions through a completely
separate storage library (innodb). Use of this critical component
drastically reduces performance, and isn't completely integrated into
mysql.
MySQL/InnoDB-3.23 was declared stable in 2002. Can you specify some reason
why you claim MySQL/InnoDB is 'still very beta'?

InnoDB is even faster than the default table type of MySQL, MyISAM, in many
simple benchmarks. Can you clarify why you claim InnoDB to 'drastically
reduce performance'?
2. performance issues:
a. it's very much oriented towards read-only transactional
queries (and it can be very fast at this). However, not many
applications meet that need except perhaps content management. It has
a much more difficult time with a balanced workload than most other
products in this category.
MySQL/InnoDB has an architecture rather close to Oracle and PostgreSQL.
MySQL/InnoDB is oriented towards a mixed workload of reads and writes. On
the other hand, DB2 lacks the consistent non-locking read capability of
Oracle, InnoDB, and PostgreSQL. In that respect DB2 is less suitable for a
mixed workload of reads and writes than those three databases.

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/In...ion_model.html

.... 3. availability & reliability:
a. mysql can maintain reasonable availability numbers - but lacks
a credible clustering offering for higher numbers.
Thousands of people use MySQL's replication feature for high availability
and greater performance of read-heavy workloads.

By the way, does somebody at this news group know how successful DB2's
clustering options are commercially? I know that Oracle RAC has been
moderately successful, but have not heard anything about DB2 offerings.
.... kenfar


Best regards,

Heikki Tuuri
Innobase Oy
Foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com/order.php
Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Kenfar,

"kenfar" <ke******@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:11*********************@c13g2000cwb.goog legroups.com...
Mairhtin O'Feannag wrote:

What are the deficiencies of MySql that I and my clients should be
aware
of?

...


MySQL disk management of "tablespaces" is practically non-existent, which is one
of my show-stoppers. Most of the deficiencies in the product can be overcome
by programming, but data management is very primitive. You must be willing
to live with almost no control over where and how you distribute data. This
is probably the single biggest area that needs to be improved upon. Yes, you
can have shared-nothing databases with the NDB database type, but this is so
primitive as to beg the question as to why you would use it rather than a more
polished product elsewhere, i.e. DB2. If cost is the factor blah blah blah.
These features are interesting and certainly worth investigating but as has
already been said, barely out of beta. I do think DB2 could be priced a bit
more competitively, but that begs the question of just who IBM are positioning
themselves with, and is MySQL in their space.

Download the product and see for yourself. But also consider that it may be
quite useful to use MySQL along with DB2, rather than an "either-or" mindset.

MySQL is great for prototyping applications because it's so easy to get
set up, and it makes perfect sense for widely distributed applications like
web sites. You can take the speed advantages for many components of
your web site with MySQL, and pull in parts of your DB2 database only when
you need to thus taking a lot of load off your "expensive" DB2 database. It
might be more instructive to have a "MySQL and DB2" approach rather than
either-or--taking note that MySQL has its place but as of today does not
have the maturity and features of DB2 or Oracle ( or even Sybase or Informix ).

-DG-

the meanwhile, many of these newly-added features are still very beta -
such as the way that they get transactions through a completely
separate storage library (innodb). Use of this critical component
drastically reduces performance, and isn't completely integrated into
mysql.

MySQL/InnoDB-3.23 was declared stable in 2002. Can you specify some reason
why you claim MySQL/InnoDB is 'still very beta'?

InnoDB is even faster than the default table type of MySQL, MyISAM, in many
simple benchmarks. Can you clarify why you claim InnoDB to 'drastically
reduce performance'?

2. performance issues:
a. it's very much oriented towards read-only transactional
queries (and it can be very fast at this). However, not many
applications meet that need except perhaps content management. It has
a much more difficult time with a balanced workload than most other
products in this category.

MySQL/InnoDB has an architecture rather close to Oracle and PostgreSQL.
MySQL/InnoDB is oriented towards a mixed workload of reads and writes. On
the other hand, DB2 lacks the consistent non-locking read capability of
Oracle, InnoDB, and PostgreSQL. In that respect DB2 is less suitable for a
mixed workload of reads and writes than those three databases.

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/In...ion_model.html

...
3. availability & reliability:
a. mysql can maintain reasonable availability numbers - but lacks
a credible clustering offering for higher numbers.

Thousands of people use MySQL's replication feature for high availability
and greater performance of read-heavy workloads.

By the way, does somebody at this news group know how successful DB2's
clustering options are commercially? I know that Oracle RAC has been
moderately successful, but have not heard anything about DB2 offerings.
...
kenfar

Best regards,

Heikki Tuuri
Innobase Oy
Foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com/order.php


Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
DG,

"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:u7***********@fe66.usenetserver.com...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Kenfar,

"kenfar" <ke******@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:11*********************@c13g2000cwb.goog legroups.com...
Mairhtin O'Feannag wrote:
What are the deficiencies of MySql that I and my clients should be

aware

of?
...


MySQL disk management of "tablespaces" is practically non-existent, which
is one
of my show-stoppers. Most of the deficiencies in the product can be
overcome
by programming, but data management is very primitive. You must be
willing
to live with almost no control over where and how you distribute data.
This


there are the following mechanisms to place InnoDB data on the chosen disk
drives:

1) create several ibdata files, and distribute them on the drives; this is
simple kind of 'striping';

2) use per-table tablespaces in 4.1, and symlink database directories (or
individual tables) where you want. That 4.1 feature is still in beta,
though.

The reason why we have not implemented the complete Oracle-like tablespace
support is that no one has come up with a reason why we should do it. If you
want disk striping to balance the load between individual physical disk
drives, you can use OS or hardware solutions. Or you can use the techniques
1 and 2 described above.

Partitioned tables are currently in development for MySQL, and they may
appear in some 5.x version.
.... -DG-


Best regards,

Heikki Tuuri
Innobase Oy
Foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL
http://www.innodb.com
Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
MySQL/InnoDB-3.23 was declared stable in 2002. Can you specify some
reason why you claim MySQL/InnoDB is 'still very beta'?

I said some of the new features are still beta. That's not really fair
- mysql ab calls them stable. It's just my opinion that they're only
halfway there with much of this functionality. Like:

1. RI & Transactions are now supported. However...

When creating tables in mysql if there's a problem with innodb mysql
will simply create the tables in myisam instead - and you will have
silently lost all transaction support for that table. Nice surprises
can result from this.

Exception handling - a weak spot in the mysql product is even worse
with subqueries, from the documentation: "Usually, failure of a
subquery causes the entire statement to fail." Ah, neat.

Primary Key definitions - are implicit if not provided, causing mysql
to confuse them with unique indexes, and requiring fk syntax to specify
the pk column.

Alter Table - is apparently half-implemented for innodb - since just
adding an index causes a table to be rebuilt. Note that this alter can
easily fail if you don't have enough storage to double the size of the
original table.

Identity columns are partially working with innodb - there's no way to
manually reset a value. Recommended solution is to insert a dummy row
when this is needed.

Innodb & replication is still missing some basic features. From the
doc: "The LOAD TABLE FROM MASTER statement for setting up replication
slave servers does not yet work for InnoDB tables. A workaround is to
alter the table to MyISAM on the master, do then the load, and after
that alter the master table back to InnoDB."

2. Subqueries are now supported. However...

Performance is pretty uneven - understandable since they've now got to
work on
the optimizer. MySQL doesn't have much to say about that except
"Development is ongoing, so no optimization tip is reliable for the
long term". In other words - the application developer will likely
have to experiment with several versions of their query, then expect to
do it all over again when the performance nose-dives after a mysql
upgrade 1-2 years from now. Nothing really wrong with this - users of
most other databases had to do the same thing. Like around 1985-1989
or so...

etc, etc.
InnoDB is even faster than the default table type of MySQL, MyISAM, in many simple benchmarks.
Right - since all MyISAM writes involve table locks, it doesn't take
much writing to completely kill performance on that table type. Prior
to adding innodb, mysql probably had the worst write peformance (or
mixed-load) of any database product I can think of except for MS
Access. And even that's debatable.

So, Innodb brings acceptable write performance to mysql. That's cool.
But it doesn't improve on its read-performance. In fact, most
experiences I've seen seem to indicate that it's about 1/10th the speed
of the isam solution. Which isn't necessarily a killer - since you can
mix table types. But if you need performance from a table you're
writing a lot to, it looks like you're out of luck with mysql for now.

Typical comment:
"MyISAM will be faster than InnoDb for reading. In my tests, MyISAM was
about 10x faster than an untuned InnoDb installation for simple Select
statements. InnoDb is capable of faster speeds but requires a lot of
tuning to get the peak performance from it. InnoDb is great for updates
but for reading I prefer MyISAM hands down." -
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/177588
From the documentation: "and another site handles an average load of 800 inserts/updates per second in InnoDB." I think that's about where
DB2 & Oracle were around 1995...

Then there's the odd way that mysql gathers stats for indexes: it
performs ten random samples of the index to gather stats. This is
acknowledged as often inaccurate with MySQL recommending the hint
"force index X" as a solution. That's great - nothing like having to
include index names in your application queries!

There may be some ways that innodb can leverage storage creatively for
additional speed - but since it already consumes 50-300% more space
than innodb, perhaps that isn't an economical option at this time.
MySQL/InnoDB has an architecture rather close to Oracle and
PostgreSQL. MySQL/InnoDB is oriented towards a mixed workload
of reads and writes. On the >other hand, DB2 lacks the
consistent non-locking read capability of Oracle, InnoDB, and
PostgreSQL. In that respect DB2 is less suitable for a mixed
workload of reads and writes than those three databases.
There are no published benchmarks of mysql on www.tpc.org, but if
mysql's claim to fame is 800 inserts / second then it's got a long way
to go before it can handle the mixed workload of db2.

Not really sure if MySQL's clustering or MAXDB enter the picture here.
MAXDB is really just adabase - a heap of pre-relational code. The
clustering solution that MySQL purchased sounds interesting - but it's
limited to data stored in memory. The lack of persistence sounds
unappealing for transactional data, and the cost of memory rules out
most large read-only systems.

Thousands of people use MySQL's replication feature for high availabilityand greater performance of read-heavy workloads.

Regarding replication for high availability - it's only HA for the
read-only data, since mysql only supports a single master.

Regarding replication for performance - this strategic is especially
problematic for several reasons:

- load-balancing across replicated servers can result in RI-like
inconsistencies in which your data appears & disappears, depending on
which server you're hitting.

- replication won't perform transformation, and you typically get *far*
better performance improvements from remodeling your oltp data than
from rehosting it. A simple ETL solution would often be preferable
here.

- mysql's lack of partitioning & parallelism is hardly compensated for
via replicated servers: since each server has 100% of the data, queries
aren't split up across servers - and the single performance strategy is
still "force an index". All that it achieves is to reduce the load by
distributing the queries across additional hardware. In an adhoc
environment with large data and few queries,mysql would get tanked.
And replication would offer no help whatsoever.

By the way, does somebody at this news group know how successful DB2's clustering options are commercially? I know that Oracle RAC has been moderately successful, but have not heard anything about DB2

offerings.

DB2 doesn't map directly to RAC - performance is achived through a
mature shared-nothing partitioning feature. This scales well to many
terrabytes and hundreds of nodes. Failover is usually provided via
HACMP, etc.

Although some folks slam MySQL for using both innodb & myisam, I think
it's fine. There's certainly an occasional need for non-logged DML.
And a number of the pieces in the overall mysql solution look good -
innodb & clustering for instance. But the code that glues them all
together into a solution that provides integrity and reliability is
completely lacking. If they can clean that up then they'll have a nice
product. And maybe a reason to look at mysql rather than a more robust
alternative such as postgresql, firebird, db2, oracle, etc.

kenfar

Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
>> Exception handling - a weak spot in the mysql product is even worse
with subqueries, from the documentation: "Usually, failure of a
subquery causes the entire statement to fail." Ah, neat
....<<

what do you mean by this?
Do you mean it should ALWAYS cause an exception?

Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
ak************@yahoo.com wrote:
Exception handling - a weak spot in the mysql product is even worse


with subqueries, from the documentation: "Usually, failure of a
subquery causes the entire statement to fail." Ah, neat
...<<

what do you mean by this?
Do you mean it should ALWAYS cause an exception?


I think ALWAYS would be a reasonable expectation.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
I'm by no means an expert in MySQL, but from the little I have read it
seems like following any sort of standard isn't its strength.
Not looking ahead, standardize and try to get it right at the first shot
means either an excess of "compatibility switches", application breakage
on upgrade or worse that the product will run itself into the
technological ditch within a couple of releases.

Just my two cents.

Cheers
Serge
Nov 12 '05 #14

P: n/a
>> I think ALWAYS would be a reasonable expectation
....<<

Of course, I'm not an expert on MySQL, but one doesn't have to eat the
whole egg...
If MySQL ever gets out of diapers, I'll be the first to agree with you.
Right now this "feature" seems to be quite consistent with the rest of
the product.

Nov 12 '05 #15

P: n/a
Well,

I can say this - the discussion is/was insightful and lively. But it
never got nasty! YAY for the discussion group.

I now have a LOT of material to read/study/follow-up on. Thanks all for
the input.

I was never trying, by the way, to avoid using MySql. I was just hit
with a question I couldn't answer. Now, at least, I can read and study
and answer the question with a bit of intelligence (I usually lack enough
intelligence to answer the door-bell on time). :)

Again, thanks for being very professional and helpful. I am, as ever, in
awe of my fellow comp.datases.ibm-db2 travellers !!!

Mairhtin


"Mairhtin O'Feannag" <ir********@rocketmail.com> wrote in
news:Xn******************************@64.164.98.7:
Hello,

I have a client (customer) who asked the question : "Why would I buy
and use UDB, when MySql is free?"

I had to say I was stunned. I have no experience with MySql, so I was
left sort of stammering and sputtering, and managed to pull out
something I heard a couple of years back - that there was no real
transaction safety in MySql. In flight transactions could be lost.

I felt like SUCH a dork.

I'm bracing for a deluge of flames and/or admonitions, but I'm still
going to ask:

What are the deficiencies of MySql that I and my clients should be
aware of? There are loads of people pushing MySql, and I don't want
to get into a religious war with ANYONE. I just need a decent answer
to the question I was asked. :)

TIA

Mairhtin


Nov 12 '05 #16

P: n/a
kenfar,

"kenfar" <ke******@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
MySQL/InnoDB-3.23 was declared stable in 2002. Can you specify some
reason why you claim MySQL/InnoDB is 'still very beta'?

I said some of the new features are still beta. That's not really fair
- mysql ab calls them stable. It's just my opinion that they're only
halfway there with much of this functionality. Like:


what features in InnoDB are beta that we have called 'stable'?

.... experiences I've seen seem to indicate that it's about 1/10th the speed
of the isam solution. Which isn't necessarily a killer - since you can
mix table types. But if you need performance from a table you're
writing a lot to, it looks like you're out of luck with mysql for now.

Typical comment:
"MyISAM will be faster than InnoDb for reading. In my tests, MyISAM was
about 10x faster than an untuned InnoDb installation for simple Select
statements. InnoDb is capable of faster speeds but requires a lot of
tuning to get the peak performance from it. InnoDb is great for updates
but for reading I prefer MyISAM hands down." -
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/177588
He is comparing an untuned InnoDB installation to MyISAM. He should write
my.cnf as explained in the 'simple my.cnf example' at
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/In...iguration.html
Tuning is not difficult for InnoDB.

It makes little sense to benchmark an untuned DB2 against an untuned Oracle,
for example.

The main reason why read-only applications may run much faster with MyISAM
than InnoDB is that MyISAM stores tables in a very compact format. MyISAM
tables are often 1/4 of the size of same data in the InnoDB or PostgreSQL
format. I recall someone measuring that Oracle tables take approximately the
same space as PostgreSQL tables. Does anyone have space usage comparisons
between DB2 and Oracle?

InnoDB will have transparently compressed/decompressed tables in 2005, and
we can close the gap to MyISAM.

.... Then there's the odd way that mysql gathers stats for indexes: it
performs ten random samples of the index to gather stats. This is
Query optimization is almost always heuristic anyway. It is not that big a
disadvantage to gather statistics through a few random samples of the B-tree
leaves.

....
MySQL/InnoDB has an architecture rather close to Oracle and
PostgreSQL. MySQL/InnoDB is oriented towards a mixed workload
of reads and writes. On the >other hand, DB2 lacks the
consistent non-locking read capability of Oracle, InnoDB, and
PostgreSQL. In that respect DB2 is less suitable for a mixed
workload of reads and writes than those three databases.


There are no published benchmarks of mysql on www.tpc.org, but if
mysql's claim to fame is 800 inserts / second then it's got a long way
to go before it can handle the mixed workload of db2.


The only independent benchmark that compares DB2 and MySQL/InnoDB is this:

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewe...20&po=1,00.asp

MySQL/InnoDB beat DB2 by a factor of 3 when there were a lot of concurrent
users. Thus, the real question may be when DB2 will attain the MySQL/InnoDB
performance.

....
Thousands of people use MySQL's replication feature for high

availability
and greater performance of read-heavy workloads.

Regarding replication for high availability - it's only HA for the
read-only data, since mysql only supports a single master.


I think you are now confusing high availability with performance(?) through
clustering.

You can get HA with a single master / single slave setup. If the master
crashes, switch to using the slave. Then set up a new slave for that slave.

.... kenfar


Best regards,

Heikki Tuuri
Innobase Oy
Foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com/order.php
Nov 12 '05 #17

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
The only independent benchmark that compares DB2 and MySQL/InnoDB is this: http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewe...a=23120&po=1,0... MySQL/InnoDB beat DB2 by a factor of 3 when there were a lot of concurrent users. Thus, the real question may be when DB2 will attain the MySQL/InnoDB performance.
I think the real question is why would anyone care about a benchmark
performed by eweek. You might at least find a publication that focuses
on databases. And perhaps try a few different workloads - adhoc query,
transactional, content management (99% read-only driven by indexes),
etc. No documentation here on the sql statements, data models, data,
or server configurations.

Not a lot of help.
You can get HA with a single master / single slave setup. If the master crashes, switch to using the slave. Then set up a new slave for that

slave.

Just out of curiosity, what's the median failover time in seconds on
this?

kenfar

Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a

I think the real question is why would anyone care about a benchmark
performed by eweek. You might at least find a publication that focuses
on databases. And perhaps try a few different workloads - adhoc query,
transactional, content management (99% read-only driven by indexes),
etc. No documentation here on the sql statements, data models, data,
or server configurations.

Not a lot of help.


You can see for yourself a description of this test (it is not a
benchmark) - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1646917,00.asp

Note the following

"MySQL's great performance was due mostly to our use of an in-memory
query results cache that is new in MySQL 4.0.1. When we tested without
this cache, MySQL's performance fell by two-thirds.

All the bookstore order tables (which needed to support transactions as
per our requirements specification) were configured to use MySQL's
InnoDB database engine (which supports transactions, row-level locking
and a multiversioning concurrency design also used by Oracle9i). The
catalog and user tables did not require transaction support, so MySQL
staff configured these tables to use MySQL's lighter-weight,
nontransactional MyISAM engine.

MySQL 4.0.1's new, extremely fast query cache is also quite notable, as
no other database we tested had this feature. If the text of an incoming
query has a byte-for-byte match with a cached query, MySQL can retrieve
the results directly from the cache without compiling the query, getting
locks or doing index accesses. This query caching will be effective only
for tables with few updates because any table updates that clear the
cache to guarantee correct results are always returned."

It's interesting that Heikki calls this exercise a "benchmark that
compares MySQL/InnoDB with DB2" when in fact not a single part of this
statement is actually true.

Note also the statement

"We invited each database vendor to have staff on-site when their
products were tested at PC Magazine's New York lab facility. MySQL and
Sybase both accepted and had staffers tune their own databases as they
wished. IBM didn't send personnel, but we exchanged several rounds of
e-mail with IBM engineers to get tuning advice. Microsoft and Oracle
both declined to be involved in the test—with their database servers, we
did all tuning ourselves with no vendor input."

There is a reason for this. The industry has some clearly defined
benchmarks that all vendors agree to and that are very carefully
audited. There is absolutely no value to anybody (other than a few
magazine advertisers) in "back street" benchmarks, no matter how
professionally they are done, and it's shame to see a vendor promoting them.

Nov 12 '05 #19

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
The only independent benchmark that compares DB2 and MySQL/InnoDB is this:

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewe...20&po=1,00.asp

MySQL/InnoDB beat DB2 by a factor of 3 when there were a lot of concurrent
users. Thus, the real question may be when DB2 will attain the MySQL/InnoDB
performance.


The DB2 result was crippled. Anyone looking at the graph can see that
something bad happend when DB2 actually regressed to a third of the
throughput just 10% of the max.
DB2 Development worked with eWeek to repro the problem and was never
able to.
Similar things can be said about the SQL Server result btw. If I recall
correctly the benchmark was not done using the recommended (native) MS
interface.

As you said: Tuning is key

Cheers
Serge
Nov 12 '05 #20

P: n/a
I agree. The email exchange with DB2 Dev. was informal as well.

Cheers
Serge
Nov 12 '05 #21

P: n/a
kenfar,

"kenfar" <ke******@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:11*********************@c13g2000cwb.goog legroups.com...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
The only independent benchmark that compares DB2 and MySQL/InnoDB is this:

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewe...a=23120&po=1,0...
MySQL/InnoDB beat DB2 by a factor of 3 when there were a lot of

concurrent
users. Thus, the real question may be when DB2 will attain the

MySQL/InnoDB
performance.


I think the real question is why would anyone care about a benchmark
performed by eweek. You might at least find a publication that focuses


because the TPC benchmarks and the eWeek benchmark are the only published
ones from the past 10 years. Usually, database vendors do not allow people
to publish their measurements. eWeek was able to get that permission. Of
course, users should run their own benchmarks with their own applications.
The problem is that we cannot discuss the results publicly in the Internet
because many DBMS vendors prohibit publication of benchmarks.

....
You can get HA with a single master / single slave setup. If the

master
crashes, switch to using the slave. Then set up a new slave for that

slave.

Just out of curiosity, what's the median failover time in seconds on
this?


Probably your script will want to wait a few seconds to see if the problem
with the master was only temporary. Redirecting queries to the slave by your
application only requires a new connection to be established, and can be
done in a fraction of a second.
kenfar


Regards,

Heikki
Nov 12 '05 #22

P: n/a
Mark,

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:41************@comcast.net...

I think the real question is why would anyone care about a benchmark
performed by eweek. You might at least find a publication that focuses
on databases. And perhaps try a few different workloads - adhoc query,
transactional, content management (99% read-only driven by indexes),
etc. No documentation here on the sql statements, data models, data,
or server configurations.

Not a lot of help.


You can see for yourself a description of this test (it is not a
benchmark) - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1646917,00.asp

Note the following

"MySQL's great performance was due mostly to our use of an in-memory query
results cache that is new in MySQL 4.0.1. When we tested without this
cache, MySQL's performance fell by two-thirds.

All the bookstore order tables (which needed to support transactions as
per our requirements specification) were configured to use MySQL's InnoDB
database engine (which supports transactions, row-level locking and a
multiversioning concurrency design also used by Oracle9i). The catalog and
user tables did not require transaction support, so MySQL staff configured
these tables to use MySQL's lighter-weight, nontransactional MyISAM
engine.

MySQL 4.0.1's new, extremely fast query cache is also quite notable, as no
other database we tested had this feature. If the text of an incoming
query has a byte-for-byte match with a cached query, MySQL can retrieve
the results directly from the cache without compiling the query, getting
locks or doing index accesses. This query caching will be effective only
for tables with few updates because any table updates that clear the cache
to guarantee correct results are always returned."

It's interesting that Heikki calls this exercise a "benchmark that
compares MySQL/InnoDB with DB2" when in fact not a single part of this
statement is actually true.


please clarify which parts of the statement are not true, and why they are
not true?

....

Regards,

Heikki

Nov 12 '05 #23

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:41************@comcast.net...
I think the real question is why would anyone care about a benchmark
performed by eweek. You might at least find a publication that focuses
on databases. And perhaps try a few different workloads - adhoc query,
transactional, content management (99% read-only driven by indexes),
etc. No documentation here on the sql statements, data models, data,
or server configurations.

Not a lot of help.


You can see for yourself a description of this test (it is not a
benchmark) - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1646917,00.asp

Note the following

"MySQL's great performance was due mostly to our use of an in-memory query
results cache that is new in MySQL 4.0.1. When we tested without this
cache, MySQL's performance fell by two-thirds.

All the bookstore order tables (which needed to support transactions as
per our requirements specification) were configured to use MySQL's InnoDB
database engine (which supports transactions, row-level locking and a
multiversioning concurrency design also used by Oracle9i). The catalog and
user tables did not require transaction support, so MySQL staff configured
these tables to use MySQL's lighter-weight, nontransactional MyISAM
engine.

MySQL 4.0.1's new, extremely fast query cache is also quite notable, as no
other database we tested had this feature. If the text of an incoming
query has a byte-for-byte match with a cached query, MySQL can retrieve
the results directly from the cache without compiling the query, getting
locks or doing index accesses. This query caching will be effective only
for tables with few updates because any table updates that clear the cache
to guarantee correct results are always returned."

It's interesting that Heikki calls this exercise a "benchmark that
compares MySQL/InnoDB with DB2" when in fact not a single part of this
statement is actually true.

please clarify which parts of the statement are not true, and why they are
not true?

...

Regards,

Heikki


Lets start slowly. It isn't a benchmark.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 12 '05 #24

P: n/a
Daniel,

"DA Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> kirjoitti
viestissä:41**********@127.0.0.1...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:41************@comcast.net...
....
It's interesting that Heikki calls this exercise a "benchmark that
compares MySQL/InnoDB with DB2" when in fact not a single part of this
statement is actually true.

please clarify which parts of the statement are not true, and why they
are not true?

...

Regards,

Heikki


Lets start slowly. It isn't a benchmark.


http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp
"
Online exclusive (July 2003 version 1.1 update): Dig deeper into the eWEEK
Labs/PC Labs database benchmark by downloading our version 1.1 database
configuration and tuning scripts, JSP code, ASP.Net code and spreadsheets
containing expanded benchmark results (582 KB .zip file). This file was
updated in July 2003 to add a more detailed readme.txt, include PC
Magazine's ASP.Net code, add some optimizations to the code and include the
originally missing MySQL configuration file. We are also making available
the raw import data (981 MB .zip file) we used to construct our databases.
"

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=benchmark
"
2 a : a point of reference from which measurements may be made b : something
that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged c : a
standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or
comparison (as of computer system performance)
"

in what way is eWeek misusing the term 'benchmark'?

To make the discussion more on-topic, does anyone have measurements about
the relative space usage of DB2 tables versus Oracle tables?
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)


Regards,

Heikki
Nov 12 '05 #25

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
in what way is eWeek misusing the term 'benchmark'?


In what way was it a benchmark other than the use of the word?
I think Mark Townsend's message was crystal clear.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 12 '05 #26

P: n/a
Mark Townsend wrote:
<SNIP
MySQL 4.0.1's new, extremely fast query cache is also quite notable, as
no other database we tested had this feature. If the text of an incoming

<SNIP>
Actually, Mark, IBM's Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) version 9.40 and later
have a very similar statement cache. The IDS version has the additional
attribute that even if the data has dirtied since the original cache, the
previously produced query plan us reused so that even then much time can be
saved for complex queries.

Art S. Kagel
Nov 12 '05 #27

P: n/a
Art S. Kagel wrote:
Mark Townsend wrote:
<SNIP
MySQL 4.0.1's new, extremely fast query cache is also quite notable,
as no other database we tested had this feature. If the text of an
incoming


<SNIP>
Actually, Mark, IBM's Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) version 9.40 and
later have a very similar statement cache. The IDS version has the
additional attribute that even if the data has dirtied since the
original cache, the previously produced query plan us reused so that
even then much time can be saved for complex queries.

Art S. Kagel


Nearly all of the vendors have a statement cache (including Oracle,
since version 7). What is being described here is a query cache where
the result set is being kept and reused, not just the parse tree and
query plan. Sort of like an inbuilt TimesTen solution.

In practice its actually a little less than optimal. We did try
something like this with a forward data cache awhile back (across the
network under clients - typically webservers), however we found that the
cost of the misses far outweighed any benefits accrued from the hits,
under most workloads. If you drop the network out of the picture then
there may be some benefit in largely read only access, but if you are
caching data anyhow in the DB proper then just giving the memory back to
the main cache seemed to win. There is still some research being done in
this area, but I would suspect that MySQL is not maintaining a good data
cache for this feature to add some benefit in these benchmarks.

Nov 12 '05 #28

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,

It's interesting that Heikki calls this exercise a "benchmark that
compares MySQL/InnoDB with DB2" when in fact not a single part of this
statement is actually true.

please clarify which parts of the statement are not true, and why they are
not true?

...

Regards,

Heikki


It's not a benchmark and it didn't compare MySQL/InnoDB with DB2.

1) It's not a benchmark

From the definition of benchmark you provided yourself
something
that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged c : a
standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or
comparison (as of computer system performance)
The PC Week exercise was not a standard or an example of a standardized
problem or test. Standard as in
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=standard)
3 : something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example
4 : something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality
PC Week is not an authority on performance testing, the benchmark used
is not one customarily used in the industry, and PC Week specifically
did not have consent to measure performance in this way - at least two
of the vendors said no.

2) It didn't compare MySQL/InnoDB with DB2

The operative word is compare. From Webster again
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...ompare&x=0&y=0)
1 : to represent as similar
2 a : to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to

discover resemblances or differences

This test didn't compare two like things at all.

It actually contrasted a query engine, with some of the data stored in
tables under transactional control, with some of the data stored in
files, not under transactional control, configured with an additional
front end query cache that could return stale results, using a hand
crafted JDBC driver, that required multiple development engineers many
days to set up and configure, called MySQL; with an off-the-shelf
relational database management system, called DB2.


Nov 12 '05 #29

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Usually, database vendors do not allow people
to publish their measurements. eWeek was able to get that permission.
This is an incorrect statement. Who at eWeek told you this ?
The problem is that we cannot discuss the results publicly in the Internet
because many DBMS vendors prohibit publication of benchmarks.


Hmm - if you believe this to be true then why does MySQL specifically
publish the results of this exercise - see
http://www.mysql.com/it-resources/benchmarks/

Nov 12 '05 #30

P: n/a
Mark,

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:41**************@comcast.net...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Usually, database vendors do not allow people to publish their
measurements. eWeek was able to get that permission.


This is an incorrect statement. Who at eWeek told you this ?


http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp

"This is particularly true in the database space, where database vendors
routinely use no-benchmarking clauses in their license agreements to block
publication of benchmarks of which they do not approve."

At least Oracle's license prohibits the publication of benchmarks without
Oracle's permission. I have not heard that Oracle would have sued eWeek for
publishing the benchmark.

Do you have some conflicting information?
The problem is that we cannot discuss the results publicly in the
Internet because many DBMS vendors prohibit publication of benchmarks.


Hmm - if you believe this to be true then why does MySQL specifically
publish the results of this exercise - see
http://www.mysql.com/it-resources/benchmarks/

Regards,

Heikki
Nov 12 '05 #31

P: n/a
Mark,

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:41**************@comcast.net...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,

It's interesting that Heikki calls this exercise a "benchmark that
compares MySQL/InnoDB with DB2" when in fact not a single part of this
statement is actually true.

please clarify which parts of the statement are not true, and why they
are not true?

...

Regards,

Heikki


It's not a benchmark and it didn't compare MySQL/InnoDB with DB2.

1) It's not a benchmark

From the definition of benchmark you provided yourself
something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or
judged c : a standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for
evaluation or comparison (as of computer system performance)


The PC Week exercise was not a standard or an example of a standardized
problem or test. Standard as in
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=standard)
3 : something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a
model or example 4 : something set up and established by authority as a
rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality


PC Week is not an authority on performance testing, the benchmark used is
not one customarily used in the industry, and PC Week specifically did not
have consent to measure performance in this way - at least two of the
vendors said no.

2) It didn't compare MySQL/InnoDB with DB2

The operative word is compare. From Webster again
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...ompare&x=0&y=0)
1 : to represent as similar
2 a : to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to

discover resemblances or differences

This test didn't compare two like things at all.

It actually contrasted a query engine, with some of the data stored in
tables under transactional control, with some of the data stored in files,
not under transactional control, configured with an additional front end
query cache that could return stale results,


the MySQL query cache is inside the server, not in the client. It does not
return stale results. The data in the cache is invalidated if the underlying
tables are updated.
using a hand crafted JDBC driver, that required multiple development
engineers many days to set up and configure,
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp
"SQL Server and MySQL were the easiest to tune, and Oracle9i was the most
difficult because it has so many separate memory caches that can be
adjusted."

"Out of all the drivers we used, Microsoft's new JDBC driver had the most
problems."

Mark Matthews' JDBC driver is the standard JDBC driver of MySQL. See:
http://www.mysql.com/products/connector/j/
called MySQL; with an off-the-shelf relational database management system,
called DB2.


Best regards,

Heikki Tuuri
Innobase Oy
Foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com
Nov 12 '05 #32

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,

Do you have some conflicting information?


Yes. Oracle did not participate in the benchmark. There is also not a
lot of potential upside in suing a magazine.

Nov 12 '05 #33

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
It's not a benchmark and it didn't compare MySQL/InnoDB with DB2.

1) It's not a benchmark
I notice you have no comment on this.
2) It didn't compare MySQL/InnoDB with DB2
I notice you have no comment on this.
This test didn't compare two like things at all.
or this.
the MySQL query cache is inside the server, not in the client. It does not
return stale results. The data in the cache is invalidated if the underlying
tables are updated.
Which means in a system that is not essentially read-only it will never
be used. In any real system DB2 would greatly outperform MySQL.
using a hand crafted JDBC driver, that required multiple development
engineers many days to set up and configure,


No comment on this either eh.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp
"SQL Server and MySQL were the easiest to tune, and Oracle9i was the most
difficult because it has so many separate memory caches that can be
adjusted."


The operative word here is "can" not "must". The people at eweek know
only slightly more about commercial RDBMS products than my mother.

MySQL has its place in the world. It is certainly sufficient to back up
a web site delivering read-only content with minimal OLTP and no need
to perform recovery on a transactional basis. But get real. A BMW, no
matter how fast, isn't an 18 wheeler. And your attempt to promote it
as such laughable.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 12 '05 #34

P: n/a
Mark,

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:q5********************@comcast.com...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,



Do you have some conflicting information?


Yes. Oracle did not participate in the benchmark. There is also not a lot
of potential upside in suing a magazine.


do you mean that Oracle told eWeek that they are not allowed to publish the
results for Oracle?

Regards,

Heikki
Nov 12 '05 #35

P: n/a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:q5********************@comcast.com...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,


Do you have some conflicting information?


Yes. Oracle did not participate in the benchmark. There is also not a lot
of potential upside in suing a magazine.

do you mean that Oracle told eWeek that they are not allowed to publish the
results for Oracle?

Regards,

Heikki


Given Mark's position in the Oracle Corporation I think you can take it
as fact that what was done by eWeek was not done with Oracle's
permission. Your quesion is probably better put to Oracle's legal
department if you really must know.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #36

P: n/a
Daniel,

"DA Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> kirjoitti
viestissä:41**********@127.0.0.1...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mark,

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:q5********************@comcast.com...
Heikki Tuuri wrote:

Mark,
Do you have some conflicting information?
Yes. Oracle did not participate in the benchmark. There is also not a lot
of potential upside in suing a magazine.

do you mean that Oracle told eWeek that they are not allowed to publish
the results for Oracle?

Regards,

Heikki


Given Mark's position in the Oracle Corporation I think you can take it
as fact that what was done by eWeek was not done with Oracle's
permission. Your quesion is probably better put to Oracle's legal
department if you really must know.


ok, a brief googling reveals that Mark Townsend has acted as a senior
director of product management at Oracle Corp. His opinions about JDBC
drivers etc. just led me to believe he is not professional in the database
area.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)


Regards,

Heikki
Nov 12 '05 #37

P: n/a
>> His opinions about JDBC
drivers etc. just led me to believe he is not professional in the
database
area.
....<<

could you please be a little bit more specific: state which of his
opinons you disagree with and why

Nov 12 '05 #38

P: n/a
Hi!

<ak************@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:11**********************@c13g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com...
His opinions about JDBC
drivers etc. just led me to believe he is not professional in the
database
area.
...<<

could you please be a little bit more specific: state which of his
opinons you disagree with and why


below a snip from an earlier post. Mark's opinions are denoted by '>', the
rest of the text is mine.

Regards,

Heikki

" It actually contrasted a query engine, with some of the data stored in
tables under transactional control, with some of the data stored in files,
not under transactional control, configured with an additional front end
query cache that could return stale results,
the MySQL query cache is inside the server, not in the client. It does not
return stale results. The data in the cache is invalidated if the underlying
tables are updated.
using a hand crafted JDBC driver, that required multiple development
engineers many days to set up and configure,
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp
"SQL Server and MySQL were the easiest to tune, and Oracle9i was the most
difficult because it has so many separate memory caches that can be
adjusted."

"Out of all the drivers we used, Microsoft's new JDBC driver had the most
problems."

Mark Matthews' JDBC driver is the standard JDBC driver of MySQL. See:
http://www.mysql.com/products/connector/j/
called MySQL; with an off-the-shelf relational database management system,
called DB2.

"
Nov 12 '05 #39

P: n/a

i@innodb.com wrote:
discover resemblances or differences

This test didn't compare two like things at all.

It actually contrasted a query engine, with some of the data stored in
tables under transactional control, with some of the data stored in files,
not under transactional control, configured with an additional front end
query cache that could return stale results,

the MySQL query cache is inside the server, not in the client. It does not
return stale results. The data in the cache is invalidated if the underlying
tables are updated.
using a hand crafted JDBC driver, that required multiple development
engineers many days to set up and configure,

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp
"SQL Server and MySQL were the easiest to tune, and Oracle9i was the most
difficult because it has so many separate memory caches that can be
adjusted."
"Out of all the drivers we used, Microsoft's new JDBC driver had the most
problems."
Mark Matthews' JDBC driver is the standard JDBC driver of MySQL. See:
http://www.mysql.com/products/connector/j/
called MySQL; with an off-the-shelf relational database management system,
called DB2.

Best regards,
Heikki Tuuri
Innobase Oy
Foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com


Thanks

ha***@users.cidermail.com

Nov 12 '05 #40

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.