Comments on: Oracle buys SleepyCat http://www.vmunix.com/mark/blog/archives/2006/02/15/oracle-buys-sleepycat/ by Mark Mayo Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:32:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: mark http://www.vmunix.com/mark/blog/archives/2006/02/15/oracle-buys-sleepycat/#comment-10056 Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:57:15 +0000 http://www.vmunix.com/mark/blog/archives/2006/02/15/oracle-buys-sleepycat/#comment-10056 BDB has proven itself to be very thread safe, yeah, which is a huge plus. It will be interesting to watch SQLite's development on this front. I've been contemplating the MySQL/Oracle "cut them off at the knees!" conspiracy theory as well. The thing is, I have *never ever* seen a MySQL install running on BDB. Not since InnoDB came out, at least. So while this buy puts Oracle in control of another of MySQL's backends, I get the (perhaps incorrect) impression that BDB wasn't a viable path forward for MySQL AB anyways. In any case, Oracle is or ought to be terrified of MySQL. If this is Oracle's strategy for competing with free database software, it will be interesting to see how they move against PostgreSQL. Similar situation there -- can't compete on price, and decreasingly on features -- but unlike MySQL there's not really a single company behind PostgreSQL, and the storage engine is "in house". A lot harder tree to topple, perhaps. BDB has proven itself to be very thread safe, yeah, which is a huge plus. It will be interesting to watch SQLite’s development on this front.

I’ve been contemplating the MySQL/Oracle “cut them off at the knees!” conspiracy theory as well. The thing is, I have *never ever* seen a MySQL install running on BDB. Not since InnoDB came out, at least. So while this buy puts Oracle in control of another of MySQL’s backends, I get the (perhaps incorrect) impression that BDB wasn’t a viable path forward for MySQL AB anyways.

In any case, Oracle is or ought to be terrified of MySQL. If this is Oracle’s strategy for competing with free database software, it will be interesting to see how they move against PostgreSQL. Similar situation there — can’t compete on price, and decreasingly on features — but unlike MySQL there’s not really a single company behind PostgreSQL, and the storage engine is “in house”. A lot harder tree to topple, perhaps.

]]> by: Fazal Majid http://www.vmunix.com/mark/blog/archives/2006/02/15/oracle-buys-sleepycat/#comment-10051 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:20:48 +0000 http://www.vmunix.com/mark/blog/archives/2006/02/15/oracle-buys-sleepycat/#comment-10051 SQLite is much more reliable and manageable in my experience, after all, there is a reason why Sun chose it as the data store for SMF. You don't want to use it in a multithreaded app, however, as there are situations where SQLite3 will deadlock when multiple writers collide. I suspect Oracle's strategy is simply to encircle MySQL and snap up all their dependencies, so they can mysteriously slow down bug fixes or feature changes required by MySQL AB. In effect,, they have probably taken a year or two's product development out of MySQL, while the latter scrambles to either find replacements for InnoDB and BDB or fork them and have to ramp up on learning the code base. SQLite is much more reliable and manageable in my experience, after all, there is a reason why Sun chose it as the data store for SMF. You don’t want to use it in a multithreaded app, however, as there are situations where SQLite3 will deadlock when multiple writers collide.

I suspect Oracle’s strategy is simply to encircle MySQL and snap up all their dependencies, so they can mysteriously slow down bug fixes or feature changes required by MySQL AB. In effect,, they have probably taken a year or two’s product development out of MySQL, while the latter scrambles to either find replacements for InnoDB and BDB or fork them and have to ramp up on learning the code base.

]]>