Re: Oracle responds to mysql concerns

From: Mladen Gogala <>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:35:06 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <hg9kha$4ag$>

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:47:39 -0800, Mark D Powell wrote:

> On Dec 14, 5:20 pm, joel garry <> wrote:
>> ORC...

>> Already made it to slashdot, too.
>> jg
>> --
>> is
>> bogus.
> Thanks for the link.
> -- Mark D Powell --

Quite frankly, I find that whining. They weren't crying about the big bad corporation when they were acquired by SUN Microsystems? SUN was a charity? Me thinks not. That is essentially the failure of the MySQL dual licensing model: it's free, but it is produced by a corporation which owns a copyright and is making a non-free version as well. The argument that they're stifling competition is also ridiculous. There are many databases with significant market share: MS SQL, DB2 and PostgreSQL all have significant market shares. There are also specialized but strong competitors like Teradata, Greenplum and Vertica, all of which make profits. Those in need of free database can always switch to PostgreSQL, it's an excellent engine and a clear and present danger to Oracle.

I used MySQL as DW engine because they had "engine=MEMORY" option and their ODBC driver was way better than the one for Times10. Essentially, data from Oracle RDBMS 10.2 is crunched using full table scans, parallel query and lots of "group by" clauses, the result is inserted into an inmemory  MySQL database and the business users are notified that they can use their clickety-click MS-Windows tools during the next week. Everybody is happy as a clam. As a matter of fact, Perl scripts doing that are still running. If MariaDB or Drizzle prove better than MySQL at that, I will gladly use them.
It's Monty's whining that I find distasteful. Someone should tell him always to look at the bright side of life. Not every database is sacred.

Received on Tue Dec 15 2009 - 21:35:06 CST

Original text of this message