Mid-range
Analysis of database management systems optimized for general-purpose or transactional use, but not the most demanding high-end transactional applications. Related subjects include:
What hard-core transactional applications have actually been built in MySQL, PostgreSQL, EnterpriseDB, or FileMaker?
And here’s the biggie.
Question of the day #3
What complex, high-volume transactional applications have actually been built in mid-range DBMS such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, FileMaker, or EnterpriseDB?
I’ve been flamed for suggesting that MySQL or FileMaker aren’t fully equal to Oracle and DB2 in supporting hard-core transactional applications. (Which is ironic, because I’ve also been flamed for suggesting hard-core transactional support isn’t as big a deal for DBMS selection as some relational purists insist. But I digress …) So I’m putting the question out there — what impressive transactional applications do the stand-alone mid-range DBMS actually support? Read more
| Categories: EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, FileMaker, Mid-range, MySQL, OLTP, Open source, PostgreSQL | 20 Comments |
14 reasons not to use MySQL or other mid-range database management systems
I may argue for the use of open source and other mid-range database management systems, but a lot of industry sentiment remains on the other side. Vendors of high-end RDBMS naturally advocate enterprise-wide single-vendor adoption. Many CIOs and industry analysts, overwhelmed by product proliferation, think that’s a neat idea as well.
And in fairness, they’re not entirely wrong. Here are 14 reasons for using high-end relational database management systems, even on applications for which mid-range DBMS would suffice. Read more
| Categories: Microsoft and SQL*Server, Mid-range, MySQL, OLTP, Open source, Oracle, PostgreSQL | 25 Comments |
What leading DBMS vendors don’t want you to realize
For very high-end applications, the list of viable database management systems is short. Scalability can be a problem. (The rankings of most scalable alternatives differ in the OLTP and data warehouse realms.) Extreme levels of security can be had from only a few DBMS. (Oracle would have you believe there’s only one choice.) And if you truly need 99.99% uptime, there only are a few DBMS you even should consider.
But for most applications at any enterprise – and for all applications at most enterprises – super high-end DBMS aren’t required. There are relatively few applications that wouldn’t run perfectly well on PostgreSQL or EnterpriseDB today. Ingres and Progress OpenEdge aren’t far behind (they’re a little lacking in datatype support). Ditto Intersystems Cache’, although the nonrelational architecture will be off-putting to many. And to varying degrees, you can also do fine with MySQL, Pervasive PSQL, MaxDB, or a variety of other products – or for that matter with the cheap or free crippled versions of Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, and Informix.
What’s more, these mid-range database management systems can have significant advantages over their high-end brethren. Read more
The world according to Derek Rodner of EnterpriseDB
If you’re interested in the world of mid-range, OLTP, and/or open source database management systems, Derek Rodner’s blog is worth checking out. His 2007 Year in Review post deserves a look — even though it’s about as unbiased and spin-free as Bill O’Reilly’s TV show, in that combines multiple shots each at Oracle and MySQL with some plugs for EnterpriseDB. I’ve already praised his post a month ago listing large numbers of EnterpriseDB successes. Of course there are multiple heartfelt arguments on behalf of Postgres (too many to link to specifically). And he even has a great set of tips — which I hereby recommend to all my vendor clients — on how best to use Google AdWords.
| Categories: EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, Mid-range, OLTP, Open source, PostgreSQL | 1 Comment |
Either there’s enormous interest in EnterpriseDB and/or mid-range relational DBMS …
… or else I’m one heck of a webinar draw.
We had 364 attendees for today’s webcast with EnterpriseDB, which is a huge number for that sort of thing.
| Categories: EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, Mid-range, Open source | 1 Comment |
Webinar on mid-range OLTP DBMS Tuesday October 23 12 noon Eastern time
I’m doing another webinar on mid-range OLTP DBMS next Tuesday, at 12 noon Eastern. It’s sponsored by EnterpriseDB, who also sponsored one six months ago on the same subject. Hopefully, this one will be a bit fresher. Sign up today! The expected turnout is humongous.
Technorati Tags: EnterpriseDB, OLTP, database management system
| Categories: Emulation, transparency, portability, EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, Mid-range, OLTP | Leave a Comment |
SAP takes back MaxDB from MySQL
Way back in January, 2006, I wrote that MaxDB was not getting merged into MySQL. Given that, it makes sense for SAP to take back control of the product. As The Reg reports, that’s exactly what’s happening.
The bigger question is — how’s MySQL’s SAP certification coming along? Whether or not MySQL gets SAP-certified and included in the SAP product catalog will be a huge indicator of whether it’s ready for OLTP prime time.
Anybody want to place bets on which midrange OLTP DBMS gets certified for SAP first, MySQL or EnterpriseDB? MySQL has a large head start, but if my clients at EnterpriseDB have their priorities straight, they might wind up lapping MySQL even so.
| Categories: EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, Mid-range, MySQL, OLTP, SAP AG | 4 Comments |
Pervasive Summit PSQL v10
Pervasive Software has a long history – 25 years, in fact, as they’re emphasizing in some current marketing. Ownership and company name have changed a few times, as the company went from being an independent startup to being owned by Novell to being independent again. The original product, and still the cash cow, was a linked-list DBMS called Btrieve, eventually renamed Pervasive PSQL as it gained more and more relational functionality.
Pervasive Summit PSQL v10 has just been rolled out, and I wrote a nice little white paper to commemorate the event, describing some of the main advances over v9, primarily for the benefit of current Pervasive PSQL developers. In one major advance, Pervasive made the SQL functionality much stronger. In particular, you now can have a regular SQL data dictionary, so that the database can be used for other purposes – BI, additional apps, whatever. Apparently, that wasn’t possible before, although it had been possible in yet earlier releases. Pervasive also added view-based security permissions, which is obviously a Very Good Thing.
There also are some big performance boosts. Read more
EnterpriseDB has a huge partisan in FTD
The Register has a rip-roaring story on a (currently partial) conversion from Oracle to EnterpriseDB. Basically, FTD is royally pissed-off at Oracle, and EnterpriseDB stepped in with a very fast conversion.
Apparently, FTD decided they needed to Do Something after a Valentine’s Day meltdown, and the project was completed on EnterpriseDB in time for Mother’s Day.
One note of caution: When a user supports a vendor’s marketing this emphatically, it usually has gotten nice breaks on price and/or service. Your mileage may vary. On the other hand, EnterpriseDB is still a small enough company that, if you want them to love you to death, you can be pretty well assured that you’re important enough to them that they’ll do so.
Keep getting great research about data management and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!
| Categories: Emulation, transparency, portability, EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, Mid-range, OLTP, Oracle | 2 Comments |
Whether or not to use MySQL
CIO Magazine has a pretty superficial back-and-forth about whether or not to use MySQL in enterprises. For example, one of the strongest claims in the pro-MySQL article is the not-so-staggering observation (italics theirs)
One way MySQL achieves this scalability is through a popular feature called stored procedures, mini, precompiled routines that reside outside of the application.
And the anti-MySQL article doesn’t have much in the way of crunchiness except for the fairly well-reasoned
Most of the required features for an RDBMS are firmly in place with the release of MySQL 5.0, but we can legitimately consider the maturity of some of these features as a possible reason to shy away from MySQL. For example, the lack of views, triggers and stored procedures has historically been the major criticism of MySQL. These have all been supported by MySQL for a year or so now, but by comparison, they have been features for about 10 years in most competing RDBMSes.
This article pair got Slashdotted, and some interesting byplay ensued. The general theme was along the lines of
“MySQL is terribly deficient out of the box.”
“Yes, but if you use this new, lightly-documented add-in, that specific problem is now solved.”
| Categories: Mid-range, MySQL, OLTP | 2 Comments |