[KLUG Members] MySQL adoption

[Robert G. Brown]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:22:29 -0500, bill <bill@billtron.com> wrote:

>Richard Harding wrote:
>>> MySQL is great as long as you don't mind doing the work in the 
>> application code rather than in the db. That is really what it comes 
>> down to. For the small PHP apps I write MySQL is great. One day I might 
>> get into a project large enough that I need the separation.
>
>Makes one wonder why Sabre is using MySQL.  They aren't following that 
>logic (small => mysql, big =>postgres).  Sabre is big (two billion in 
>revenue last year) and they went with MySQL.
Big (in dollar volume) is not really a suitable metric here. Complexity
might be a better. I can think of a lot of businesses that are low in 
complexity, and high in dollar volume. I recall seeing a lot of Sabre
innards in the past, it's not all THAT complex.

It has been a long time since I really evaluated the difference in ability
to handle complexity among DB servers, and I would expect that MySQL has 
made some improvements in this regard. Last time I looked (different century,
different POTUS) MySQL lacked some features that were necessary for a variety
of applications, this may have changed in the intervening period.

>Their project is described as "mission-critical enterprise services that 
>conduct online travel searches for Sabre Holdings customers such as 
>Travelocity, airlines and travel agents worldwide."

Yes, among other things.

I liked the MYSQL joke, BTW... although I'm not sure if anyone who is well-
informed enough to provide that sort of information really cares! :)

What I liked even more than the joke was something a paragraph or two down
on the same page:

"Anyway, life would be so much easier if people stopped trying to think 
of MySQL in terms of Oracle or PostgreSQL or MSSQL or DB2 or... other 
database servers. It's none of them. It does many things they do not and 
doesn't do things they do. It satisfies different needs."

All that said, the press release does NOT say "we selected MySQL over ....".
What is a win for one product (or a choice for one user) need not detract
from the merit of competitive products. We can't advocate a world of choice,
and then flame those who don't make the same choice we do.

I run a lot of stuff with PostGreSQL, and there are reasons making that
choice. Perhaps at least some of those reasons are outmoded. In any case,
it's not economical to re-evaluate these things with every release of
each DBMS. In any case, I don't see why we must identify ourselves by
which of these we use, and we can each use them where it's suits us.

Isn't that the real purpose of all this stuff? Now, no flame-wars, let's
all get back to work.
						Regards,
						---> RGB <---