Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 12»»

Guest editorial: Reasons to be Cheerful Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, February 3, 2009 11:01 PM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 8:21 AM
Points: 569, Visits: 1,038
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Guest editorial: Reasons to be Cheerful
Post #649537
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 6:48 AM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 11:56 AM
Points: 1,654, Visits: 1,976
I hadn't been following the MySQL developments, but this is good to know in case I am presented with a situation in which I have to deal with it. I guess Sun bit off more than they could chew at the moment. Hopefully they haven't alienated the MySQL people and they get it sorted out. If they don't, at least we still have SQL Server.
Post #649771
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 7:14 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:32 AM
Points: 109, Visits: 70
No doubt that Microsoft does a good job with SQL Server as a mature platform, but as an old geezer, I recall the year following the release of SQL Server after Microsoft purchased the code for Sybase to use as a basis for their enterprise database. They took the same type of criticism from admins and journalists that we are hearing about Sun and MySQL. Sun is a good organization and will eventually get it right but it takes time to tackle a beast of this magnitude.
Post #649818
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 9:12 AM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:52 PM
Points: 3,428, Visits: 14,451
SharePoint.

Sharepoint bloat because the Sharepoint team have decided not to talk to object relational experts that will improve architecture because most important components still use custom collections instead of SQL Server tables. And when SQL Server is used the code is crappy.


PerformancePoint.

One word greed because Microsoft bought what Ralph Kimball called MDX scripting tool instead of keeping the original and using parts of it to provide Winform and Webform for SSAS, Microsoft created a tool that most people are not willing to pay for. If Microsoft have created configurable Webform and Wniform doing MDX SAS and other tools vendors would have taken notice instead of ignoring Performance point.


LINQ-to-SQL.

The existing problems are pedestrian algebraic problems that can be fixed in the next version of Visual Studio by adding a LINQ to SQL designer that allow direct Store proc and .sql files execution. There are changes provided by both Microsoft employees and third parties it is not over because the main issue is to drop the sqlmetal from a 30th floor window. This product and Performance Point show brains solve problems aggression just cost development funds.


entity framework.

Drop it from the 30th floor window because most tasks can be better performed with automated SSIS package and the old DataSet.

On a side note everyday Microsoft leaves billions of dollar because departments don't work together.


MySQL

Sun will make it if it leaves Peter Gulutzan in Canada as the MySQL team did before Sun bought MySQL it is the same arrangement Microsoft had with Jim Grey. Peter Gulutzan created a relational engine before MySQL became popular and Oracle's Jim Melton and Peter Gulutzan are the only people to wrote books about ANSI SQL persistent stored modules. So Sun needs to keep the bureaucrats from the MySQL team and things will only improve because many web developers both Microsoft and PHP uses MySQL. On a side note there is MySQLTransactions in .NET easy move the JDBC Java data access code to .NET to improve MySQL ADO.NET implementation.


Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
Post #649971
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 9:58 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 10, 2012 6:08 PM
Points: 1,156, Visits: 801
I have written here before on the development history of MySQL, and indeed, my current employ uses it, with much pain. Don't get me wrong: I love that there are other ideas and competition in the DBMS space. However, for anyone to think MySQL is at this time a comparable platform to MS SQL Server or Oracle, has not done their homework, or is just flat out biased and/or without real knowlege of the other systems.

One must understand that MySQL is a "plugin" architecture, where the SQL service engine is a layer over potentially many different types of engines (15+ types). This is a feature and a bug. Only one of these engines was advertised as ACID compliant (INNODB), and MySQL did not even own that engine. This is what chokes progress on that platform. In my opinion, Sun is using it more to sell more servers, not databases... and give the market another big reason to buy their hardware.

They do have a market... primarily the anti-MS crowd.
Post #650052
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 10:06 AM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:52 PM
Points: 3,428, Visits: 14,451
That was an oversite because I know enough to say MySQL is not even up to SQL Server 2000 more like SQL Server 7.0 with service packs. And yes Oracle owns INNODB storage but Sun with time will only improve on the existing product.

I will never say it can be compared to Oracle or SQL Server but money and brains improve products overtime Sun have both.

Oracle paid more than 200 million dollar for INNODB storage so Sun did not pay too much for MySQL. Both Oracle and Microsoft improved their products by buying other companys with features needed to improve each products. If Sun did not buy MySQL things would only get worse IBM runs on all operating systems including Windows same thing with Oracle and SQL Server runs only on Windows.

On a side note Microsoft owns most none ANSI SQL Transaction through Jim Gray.


Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
Post #650067
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 12:22 PM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 10, 2012 6:08 PM
Points: 1,156, Visits: 801
Gift Peddie (2/4/2009)
... but money and brains improve products overtime Sun have both.


OK, let's consider the "money and brains" situation:

Considering MySQL and MS SQL Server: both products have had basically the same amount of time, many people do not know that both products started very nearly at the same time.

One product had paid development thrown at it (translation: large amounts of money and brains). The other sat for a time with a far smaller pool of few, then went opensource (translation: trickle amounts of money, and functionally not more brains as everything still flowed through a single (or few) gate keeper(s)). One somehow grew 10 years ahead of the other (witnessed even by your own words above, in your comparison to SQL Server 7/2K).

I sincerely hope MySQL does improve. But it won't be on the "free" nickel. In TCO, sadly many only consider the blaring initial cost... but the cost in time and money in any required work-arounds, make-dos, and caveats far exceeds the initial cost of any product... many times over. Bad or inappropriate choices translate to lost opportunity costs. One must consider how much that choice will affect the enterprise, compared to other products, for at least a decade into the future. If one product is a decade behind another, what does that mean to the enterprise? How much is at the fingertips, and how much will cause endless sleepless nights?

Too many times the choice is made by personal familiarity and predjudice (free vs. cost of initial investment) instead of real world experience and reality.

Sun will make up their billion dollar investment in boosted server sales alone. Look at the main page of the MySQL site these days: what is advertised more? Servers or DBMS? Good luck on the MySQL platform going forward in big ways. It will only do so if it becomes a major paying stream and owns their ACID-compliant DB engine.

MS SQL Server, on the other hand, is and must be a paying stream for MS, and has far more "money and brains" that are actually fully dedicated to the improvement of the product thereof. This is not biased chatter... just looking at the situation as it has rolled on, over time.

I see MS making strides and substantial in-roads with light platforms of the flagship DB product, negating the intial startup cost issue. I see Sun pushing hardware more than ever.

Your mileage may vary.
Post #650226
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 12:46 PM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:52 PM
Points: 3,428, Visits: 14,451
This will not be the first time Sun have failed pushing hardware I remember back in 1996 I could not get a price quote on Sun's Spark. The problem is Sun, IBM, HP and Red Hat and many other companys sells some version of Unix. I don't think it is practical for companies to buy MySQL instead of any other RDBMS Sybase included because it comes with limited features.

But MySQL getting ACID compliant storage is not complicated because ANSI SQL Transactions are a Unit of Work nesting is added by vendors and all uses Save Points to enable nesting but Save Point implementations differ because you can only roll back Save Point if your SQL Server is 2000 Sp3a and above. This MySQL can get with Peter in MySQL team because ANSI SQL have done the complex basic engineering.

The way I see it Sun could make money keeping web developers happy something MySQL was doing before Sun. And again I cannot compare MySQL to Microsoft because Microsoft had the multi talented Jim Grey from the start MySQL just found the money to hire Peter Gulutzan. Jim Grey can only be compared to Oracle's Jim Melton and I will take Jim Grey over Jim Melton any day because I can understand what Jim Grey writes and creates for software development.


Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
Post #650254
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 1:33 PM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 10, 2012 6:08 PM
Points: 1,156, Visits: 801
Gift Peddie (2/4/2009)
But MySQL getting ACID compliant storage is not complicated...


Unfortunately, the evidence shows that it was/is no small undertaking for MySQL.
Post #650313
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 1:51 PM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:52 PM
Points: 3,428, Visits: 14,451
Transaction is very complex math some of the reasons I prefer Jim Grey I interpret his work which Microsoft implemented in more than five places to developers like me.

So MySQL had a lot of work waiting for Peter Gulutzan like stored procedures and DRI and he was hired not very long ago so I still think it is easier to implement quantifiable mathematical Unit of work than the application layer version which require resource manager or provider to resolve the atomicity. That is not needed in the ANSI SQL version. And I am not saying there is DRI in MySQL either but both are complex tasks.



Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
Post #650342
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse