161–170 of 336 posts
You wrote:
"Despite all the hurdles in our migration path, we have already seen the benefits of running 8.0."
May I ask what are the main performance benefits you have measured/noticed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
gresrun works at YouTube, if by reference you mean citation then his comment is it.
wikibob was probably looking more for public documentation about the why and how rather than confirmation that the statement is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. Why don't they use in-house Google databases, which are supposedly vastly more scalable than MySQL?
Because there is a substantial cost to such migrations. If it works don't fix it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work for a government agency in a rather poor flyover state. We ran Oracle databases and a few other products for multiple decades, until Oracle conducted an audit and decided to shake us down for everything we were worth. We migrated away from their products, but only after being forced into expensive multi-year subscriptions for products that we didn't need. I will never forget the arrogance and greed of their le…
I'm no fan of oracle's audit approach but it sounds like you were expecting special leniency to not pay for their stuff - for decades - because you are a govt agency/ live in a low income place. Not how business works. If you're playing by the rules, no one can force you into any long term contracts you don't need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's my opinion that schema changes should be cheap, fast and unexciting. Unfortunately, in my experience once you are operating at scale they are expensive, slow and fraught with peril. The result is that engineering teams often chose to build poorly designed schemas and take on technical debt rather than make a schema change to a core table. This is a terrible anti-pattern! I'm massively in favour of anything that…
Before Twitter migrated off their MySQL user database there were many columns that had been repurposed for exactly this reason.
I'd much rather use a robust, performant real schema migrations tool though.
It's interesting to see FB migrating so much over to Oracle. 2 weeks ago was FB use of GraalVM (from Oracle). And now this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27782475
I guess one could dream of the remote possibility that Facebook outright acquires Oracle. It seems like a weird match, but it'd give FB a toehold in a lot of verticals that it currently has no presence in. Whatever criticisms you have of FB, it's at least a pretty open source friendly company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is definitely stuff that is non-standard, like the casting with :: in addition to CAST AS. But it's true that PSQL sticks very closely to the standard or only adds on top of it, while MySQL is very uncomformant. Funnily enough, I actually first used Postgres over MySQL a long time ago when I moved from PHP to NodeJS, and was annoyed that MySQL uses backticks for identifiers while PSQL uses SQL standard double q…
It is practically essential for any RDBMS to provide non-standard statements and features. For example, even CREATE INDEX isn't in the SQL standard, since the SQL standard deliberately avoids talking about what it considers to be implementation details. This is probably a good goal in many ways. But what counts as an implementation detail is open to interpretation. You could say the same thing about the isolation lev…
The best way to learn the SQL standard is to read the Postgres docs since they clearly call out non-compliances - there is no other easy to access and clear explanation of the SQL standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet MySQL is very much alive..? Java has fully opensource implementations too, and has had innovations like GraalVM and Jakarta EE. I think I'm too young to hate Oracle with a burning passion. I would be very scared of their sales/corporate team, but I mean, even having large contracts with Google or Amazon is difficult to say the least.
MySQL is alive for companies already using MySQL, but would well informed companies be choosing it today? I'm not so sure. I think you either want it to have more functionality and you choose Postgres, you want a particular performance profile and you pick MariaDB, or you want the enterprise support and you pick Oracle's database. Why you would pick Oracle-supported MySQL today I'm not sure.
With MySQL group replication, it is pretty easy to set up a HA cluster that allows you to sleep soundly. It can also handle thousands of connections without the need of a connection pooler.
Perhaps it's due to me being in the PostgreSQL camp, but what happened to MariaDB? I was convinced that's where MySQL developers went and that's where development proceeded, while MySQL was just half dead, because Oracle did not care about it.
That was the expectation but the Oracle camp surprised everyone by actually giving it some attention, and meanwhile MariaDB's promise of being a "100% compatible drop-in replacement" came with more and more caveats with each release (as is to be entirely expected with any fork). When you consider the network effect of all the stacks already heavily invested in MySQL, all Oracle really needed to do was put in a modicu…
Anecdata: I've been using mariadb as a drop in mysql replacement for over 5 years in production, and it's been working seamlessly.
I'm no DB expert, and perhaps my use case isn't complex enough or written in a highly mysql dependent way - but I felt like someone should chime in since there's not much positivity toward mariadb in this thread so far. I'd be interested to hear from some other people with actual mariadb experience.