[HN Gopher] MariaDB to go public at $672M valuation
___________________________________________________________________
MariaDB to go public at $672M valuation
Author : ashvardanian
Score : 308 points
Date : 2022-02-01 15:42 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mariadb.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mariadb.com)
| mandarax8 wrote:
| There is something wrong about the website of the company that
| bought the shares: https://angelpond.com/
| tarkin2 wrote:
| So a distrust of Oracle made someone more than half a billion?
| Those Oracle lawyers actually did create economic value then. Who
| would have thunk it.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| You could also say it's a big market and there is room for
| multiple winners. Not everything is a monopoly.
| galosh wrote:
| There is some deeply perverse insight in this comment and I
| love it. The principle seems to apply quite generally across
| much of modern tech. Where are the viable contenders for Google
| products built on a platform of.. counter-reputation? This
| concept needs a name
| speedcoder wrote:
| "Bait fork-and-switch"?
| Bjartr wrote:
| Seems like plain old competition to me.
| [deleted]
| dabfiend19 wrote:
| distrust of Oracle is Mongo's main source of income. and it's a
| ~$25B company now.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| huh? What kind of return on investment can one expect from a
| database engine stock(??) Why would anyone buy it?
| MikeKusold wrote:
| MongoDB IPO'd for ~$30/share. They peaked in November at $590,
| and are currently at $409.
|
| If you invested you would have made a nice chunk of change.
| MongoDB does have a hosting service though which could be
| driving a decent chunk of revenue.
| abirch wrote:
| With MariaDB you can centralize your block chain.
| chronogram wrote:
| MariaDB sells MariaDB Enterprise and MariaDB as a service
| (SkySQL).
| sdan wrote:
| SPAC sponsors and mariadb investors get to cashout massively,
| while the SPAC drops 70% in the next year. A tale as old as
| time.
| donohoe wrote:
| Wow, like that must be roughly 300 Wordl's in money.
| uvdn7 wrote:
| My impression is that MariaDB has good ARM support out of the
| box. I am not sure about ARM support status of other popular DBs.
| spmurrayzzz wrote:
| Mongo has done a significant amount of work to optimize for
| ARM. And from my own testing, that work has paid off both on
| bare metal as well as cloud (specifically, the AWS Graviton2
| instance type).
| 9thbit wrote:
| We tried using it as a drop in for MySQL docker containers on
| new ARM Macs and it is very slow, nearly as slow as emulating
| an x86 MySQL container.
| michaelcampbell wrote:
| Docker on Mac used to have horrible I/O inefficiencies, which
| would cripple a DB I'd reckon. Is that still the case?
| edgyquant wrote:
| Seems to be for me, yes, running a simple yarn install
| takes 10-15 minutes inside docker while it takes 2-3
| minutes tops just using the terminal
| mikece wrote:
| A public company will have a board of directors who set the
| direction of the company; as such what is to stop the board from
| directing that the license be changed?
| ComradePhil wrote:
| I am sure they'll change their license, like some others have
| done:
|
| https://www.confluent.io/blog/license-changes-confluent-plat...
| https://blog.timescale.com/blog/building-open-source-busines...
|
| I don't think there is any place for GPL in databases and
| similar software, specially if it is to be built and run by
| for-profit companies.
| mikece wrote:
| I used to be opposed to GPL at moral level have have since
| changed my mind on this. It makes sense for anything that is
| essentially infrastructure -- operating systems, web servers,
| software firewalls -- to be GPL: improvements at this level
| are rarely something which gives a specific company a
| competitive advantage. In the cases where it would, however,
| I like the idea of dual-licensing so that a GPL project (for
| example: Linux) could be combined with proprietary code
| without needing to publish the changes. Right now anyone
| thinking along those lines (Sony, Netflix, Juniper, etc)
| chooses FreeBSD. In the case of the companies who have chosen
| FreeBSD for proprietary use they have, in many cases, ended
| up contributing work back to the parent project if for no
| other reason than self-interest in making updates to the base
| OS easier as their custom code remains slim. If Linux had
| been offering this dual-license option I think the examples
| above would have chosen Linux and there would have been
| contributions back to the parent project that aren't there
| today.
| webmobdev wrote:
| Yeah, but everything should be AGPL now instead of GPL. The
| software-as-service fiasco that changes the nature of
| "distribution" to bypass the open source requirements of
| licenses like GPL highlighted a loophole that corporates
| haven't hesitated in exploiting. AGPL has temporarily
| addressed this. However AGPL needs to go one more step and
| allow changing the license to plug any future loopholes.
| Right now, many GPL software cannot be automatically
| upgraded to AGPL license because we have to get permission
| from all the contributors to change the license. AGPL needs
| a clause that allows easy upgradation of the license
| retrospectively to ensure that the core concept can be
| defended in future too.
| ergonaught wrote:
| They cannot change the license for the GPL code for which they
| do not own copyright, which is everything forked from MySQL
| proper.
| SloopJon wrote:
| I always thought of MariaDB as a fork of GPLed MySQL code that
| is now owned by Oracle. However, I see that MariaDB uses a
| contributor agreement, and reserves some features for a
| proprietary(?) enterprise edition.
|
| Do I misunderstand the copyright status of MySQL/MariaDB, or
| has MariaDB been clever about how it adds features to the GPL
| core, such that they're not legally derivative works?
| eli wrote:
| The same thing that stops a sole developer from changing the
| license?
| eklitzke wrote:
| All C corporations have a board of directors, not just publicly
| listed companies. If the BoD wanted to push to change the
| license they could have done that years ago.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Owners of code can always change their licence. Being a public
| company with a board of directors doesn't change anything.
| JediPig wrote:
| talking about selling the same product.. TWICE.
| formvoltron wrote:
| sounds like a short
| glutamate wrote:
| Have SPACs rebranded as Blank Check Companies?
| slapshot wrote:
| The other way around. "Blank check companies" have existed for
| many many years, but were a relatively rare instrument and did
| very bespoke deals. Most investors never heard of them. In
| recent years, a standardized deal emerged that became known as
| a SPAC (and all the recent flavors of the month). If you look
| in SEC regulations, you'll see references to "blank check
| companies" all over the place.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Interesting. Why are SPACs getting a bad rep? Is it because
| of the acquisitions of shady companies or is there an
| underlying issue with the process followed by SPACs?
| sdan wrote:
| SPAC sponsors get essentially a free money trade when they
| merge with a company; usually this results in merging with
| sub-par companies with bad numbers (no revenue or even
| product usually) so investors can cash out massively
| without the company really needing to succeed at all
|
| Case in point: most SPACs have fallen anywhere from 50-70%
| (evtol/lidar/battery companies) over the past year due to
| the fact that most don't have either a working product or
| poor numbers
| gw67 wrote:
| Do you think it will have a lower PS ration than Mongo db?
| Currently, mongodb is 7$ TTM Sales per Share
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| And the cycle continues. Who is going to fork MariaDB now?
| ezekiel68 wrote:
| This is awesome. And if we don't like what the public company
| does in 6 months, someone can fork the codebase, call it
| monikadb, rinse, and repeat in a few years!
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Mr Widenius, we see you. Good show! Up Next, MyMariaDBSQLMax
| cletus wrote:
| Whatever else you might think, you can't help but be impressed by
| someone selling MySQL to Sun for $1 billion, forking it and then
| taking it public effectively selling it again.
|
| Respect.
| acomjean wrote:
| I thought Oracle bought it. I think I had to make an account to
| download something. And I think it was Oracle that bought the
| MySql user group (I attended a couple meetings) pizza.
|
| I was the interface between Oracle Sales and management at a
| start up a long time ago. It was weird. They offer technical
| help to use their API, (so its harder to switch away, I was
| told by my boss). We were on using on a trial basis. They
| seemed to want to charge based on CPU speed of the computer
| installed on. The startup ran out of money...
| e12e wrote:
| Sun bought mysql, oracle bought Sun.
|
| https://www.e-channelnews.com/sun-microsystems-to-acquire-
| my...
|
| https://www.oracle.com/corporate/pressrelease/oracle-buys-
| su...
|
| But it was close 2008 and 2009 I believe.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Well, at least they won't be selling it to Oracle.
| supperburg wrote:
| cies wrote:
| Take that SCO^H^H^H Oracle!
|
| Other news:
|
| Adoptium/Temurin is doing FLOSS Java distro under the Eclipse
| Foundation
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptium
| kaba0 wrote:
| How is Oracle's OpenJDK _not_ FLOSS?
| cies wrote:
| MySQL is also FLOSS right? It's not about it being FLOSS or
| not, its about their stewardship of open innovation projects.
| No surprise that super commercial/ legal heavy company is not
| great at it.
|
| Not saying I love Goolge, Facebook or even MS these days, but
| they seem to play it A LOT nicer that Oracle in that regard.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Doubt. Oracle was the company that did finally open-source
| java completely, making every single previously paid-only
| feature found in OracleJDK available for free/libre in
| OpenJDK, of which they are responsible for 99% of all
| commits. Also, the language has been doing exceedingly well
| under their stewardship.
| zibzab wrote:
| Larry Ellison is _not_ happy today.
|
| Edit: let me explain. Larry bought mysql to save oracle from
| being outcompeted by a young entrepreneur. Who left after 2 years
| to create an even more competent DB. To add insult to the injury,
| this market value is below what they paid for mysql 15 years ago,
| which makes Larry look incompetent.
| evanelias wrote:
| Your comment doesn't make sense.
|
| MySQL was originally purchased by Sun, not Oracle. Although
| Oracle did acquire Innobase Oy (makers of InnoDB, the most
| popular storage engine in both MySQL and MariaDB) prior to
| this.
|
| Oracle later purchased Sun, which included other valuable
| properties (e.g. Java) in addition to MySQL. Naturally this
| would be a more expensive acquisition than just MySQL itself.
|
| Regardless, the current enterprise value of MySQL (meaning, the
| MySQL business unit under Oracle) would depend primarily on
| Oracle's MySQL revenue. This really has no relation whatsoever,
| in any conceivable way, to the initial listing price of
| MariaDB's SPAC. These are separate databases with separate
| userbases, separate cloud DBaaS offerings, separate support
| contract businesses, etc.
| ashvardanian wrote:
| That is hilarious. For reference, Sun acquired MySQL AB in
| February 2008 for $1 billion.
| kerblang wrote:
| And Oracle bought Sun in 2010; Widenius got mad and created
| MariaDB the same day, apparently out of spite.
|
| (I don't think any of the characters were particularly
| ethical, smart or otherwise commendable... they just did what
| people do)
| 0des wrote:
| _look_ incompetent?
| imjk wrote:
| This is a bad take. Oracle today is worth $216B. Over the last
| 15 years Oracle, under the leadership of Ellison, has grown 5x
| in value, returning significant shareholder value. I personally
| very much dislike Oracle and its products, but I have to
| respect Larry Ellison for his performance as an executive.
| [deleted]
| slim wrote:
| to be fair, market value should have been obviously much higher
| when mariadb was not around. I would say his error was tactical
| : oracle is probably not capable of growing an opensource
| product which makes that acquisition a bad move
| fullstop wrote:
| The creator of MySQL named it after his daughter, "My". After it
| was forked, the fork was named after his other daughter, "Maria".
|
| He has three children, so we've got one more go at this with a
| MaxDB if needed.
|
| edit: I was wrong -- He already used MaxDB previously. We're out
| of names.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Lucky Monty, he got to sell it twice!
| tpmx wrote:
| Sun paid $1B the first time (in 2008).
| slim wrote:
| Who said opensource can't be profitable ?
| fullstop wrote:
| He did create MaxDB as part of MySQL AB, so one could say
| that he got the Full Monty.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| LOL. you ain't wrong
| ab_testing wrote:
| He just needs to have another kid.
| c0brac0bra wrote:
| I'm pulling for "RickyDB"
| golergka wrote:
| What's wrong with BobbyTables?
| jonathankoren wrote:
| It has poor security and storage instability. ;)
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Sorry, I know that explaining a joke makes it less funny,
| but would you mind? I'm really curious now.
| rootlocus wrote:
| https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Little_Bobby_T
| abl...
| zamadatix wrote:
| Wait now I'm confused... Ricky is a diminutive form of
| Richard and Bobby is a diminutive form of Robert - what's
| the link?
| rootlocus wrote:
| Because I was confused and thought I was replying to
| someone who didn't understand the "BobbyTables", sibling
| below. My bad.
| skuzye wrote:
| It's all explained here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
| [deleted]
| tromp wrote:
| MaxDB [1] is already a thing.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Widenius#Personal_life
| JJMcJ wrote:
| Don't forget cousin Postgres.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Now I'm wondering where Oracle and DB2 would be in that
| family tree.
| RedShift1 wrote:
| Abusive uncle for Oracle seems apt to me.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| The part of the family that isn't on speaking terms anymore
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| And his son, little Bobby Tables.
| schnevets wrote:
| And that mischievous brat who lives down the street, Mongo.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I bet they all went to Berkley U.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Are there any grandkids? Surely someone is procreating to make
| sure we won't run out of names.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| Wow. I've spent a lifetime vaguely hating MySQL because I'm
| bothered by computer software that projects first-person
| pronouns onto users (Microsoft Windows "My Computer" -- um, no,
| Windows, you're not me, if you're addressing me, it's "Your
| Computer").
|
| I'm going to be spending a long while contemplating this. My.
| That's so sweet.
| omgmajk wrote:
| The pronunciation of the name My, or Y in Swe/Fin is somewhat
| different from English, it's hard to write down what it
| sounds like but you can use google translate to get somewhat
| the right thing.
|
| Here, the word yxa (axe) comes close. https://translate.googl
| e.com/?sl=sv&tl=en&text=yxa&op=transl...
|
| Edit: Found someone saying the name My, as in Lilla My from
| the moomins https://forvo.com/word/lilla_my/
| macksd wrote:
| You misunderstand - the computer belongs to Windows.
| [deleted]
| mrweasel wrote:
| That had to be a difficult talk at the dinner table: Sorry My,
| but you have to go live with uncle Larry now.
| sroussey wrote:
| English is not their first language.
| awill wrote:
| Ha. Actually, I sold you to uncle Larry, but don't worry,
| I'll be spending more time with your sister.
| cerved wrote:
| I prefer the sound of SnorreDB
| me_me_mu_mu wrote:
| His final one should just be YourSQL.
|
| I'm having trouble with YourSQL, but its now MySQL problem :(
| IgorPartola wrote:
| How many database companies are out there that made it big? How
| many are based on FOSS? It seems like the lesson of "you can't
| make money in a FOSS database (or file system)" keeps being
| learned and relearned the hard way.
| volsa_ wrote:
| MongoDB would be one that comes to mind which is public traded
| (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MDB/)
| ashvardanian wrote:
| they are doing OK, but much worse than the private Snowflake,
| in terms of multiples and growth rate. FOSS is too easy to
| replicate, so Mongo is most likely earning a lot less than
| AWS and other cloud vendors from their forks of Mongo.
| jerrybender wrote:
| Snowflake is publicly traded
| avrionov wrote:
| The market will be challenging because the big cloud players
| offer their version, but recently there were a few successful
| database companies:
|
| - MongoDB
|
| - Snowflake
|
| - Databricks
|
| These 3 are probably the biggest, but there are few others
| which are promising: Cockroach Labs, Materialize,
| PlanetScale, Yugabyte.
| pmarreck wrote:
| Any comparisons to postgres?
| rr808 wrote:
| Is MariaDB code base a fork of MySQL, seems a good business to
| sell something twice. I would have expected him to have a non-
| compete after selling it the first time. Anyone know how he
| pulled this off?
| tomtheelder wrote:
| MariaDB is 12 years old. Any sort of non-compete probably
| expired.
| zibzab wrote:
| Yes, but this is Oracle we are talking about. For every
| developer they have 4 salesmen and 5 lawyers...
| [deleted]
| hodgesrm wrote:
| Assuming you have sensible legal advice, non-competes related
| to company sale have a duration. 3 years is typical in
| California, which was presumably governing law for the MySQL
| purchase by Sun.
| ashvardanian wrote:
| Sadly I have to note, that almost all modern DBMS companies
| don't bring anything new to the table. They incredibly over-
| funded, but compete in S&M instead of R&D. A sizable chunk of
| those are essentially Postgres over RocksDB. Don't want to name
| anyone here, but 2 minutes of Googling with the right keywords
| will bring up more examples
| mizzao wrote:
| Wow, this seems like a tiny public company, reminding me of 1990s
| IPOs...which is great.
|
| Much better than gargantuan privately held companies where all
| the gains are going to a small group of capital holders.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| What makes you think the stock market is any different? If
| anything, a private company has greater leeway to share the
| wealth because they don't have nagging institutional
| shareholders. How many public companies have robust profit-
| sharing programs? FAANG-level companies don't count because
| they're in their own category
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I know SPACs get a lot of hate but I love seeing Wall Street
| listing firms get cut out of the IPO, losing their enormous
| "traditional" slice of the IPO pop.
|
| Good luck to MariaDB.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| As a class, SPACs have higher fees than IPOs and perform worse
| as investments. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-
| economics/2021/12/04/h...
| boulos wrote:
| You're thinking of "direct listings" (and even then, Morgan
| Stanley has done several of them). SPACs are actually fairly
| inefficient and usually give large windfalls to the SPAC
| _sponsors_.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I'm far more OK giving a windfall to the SPAC sponsor who
| sought out and helped a promising company to merge with and
| list, than a WS gatekeeper who is paid simply for being in-
| between a startup and an IPO.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Yeah, let's stick it to the Wall Street gatekeepers by
| paying fees to this SPAC.
|
| > The Angel Pond SPAC vehicle was founded by CEO and
| Chairman Theodore Wang, the founder of Puissance Capital
| Management and Angel Pond Capital and a former Partner at
| Goldman Sachs, and Simon Xie, the founder and Executive
| Director of Hangzhou Hupan Shannan Capital Management and a
| co-founder of Alibaba Group.
|
| If you want public money (via SPAC or IPO), you're paying
| money to "Wall Street" in one form or another.
| _sword wrote:
| Ultimately Wall Street gets paid more for SPACs than IPOs. Both
| sponsors and their advisors get more fees and upside. There's a
| reason so many SPAC's happened during 2020 and 2021 and it
| wasn't because companies thought SPAC's were superior to IPO's.
| Banks made more money.
| HaZeust wrote:
| The trick to stopping Wall Street listing firms from their
| slice is NOT SPACs, but rather the "Dutch Auction" IPO method.
| Created by American Company WR Hambrecht - and popularized by
| American Company Google, the Dutch Auction IPO method allows
| online bidders to pre-emptively bid a stock's price, which lets
| companies find an equilibrium for supply and demand that they
| believe investors will be happy about. This, in turn, allows
| IPOs to encounter less manipulation and allows them to dodge
| banking "flips"; where banks set the price, buy it low, and
| sell high in the future
| capableweb wrote:
| > MariaDB, Fast Growing, Popular Open Source Database Software
| Company
|
| No matter how I turn and adjust the parameters, MariaDB seems to
| be the least popular of the big databases on the market today
| (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...)
| and looking long-term (2004-preset), it seems like it's
| popularity is going down, not up
| (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=MariaDB).
|
| I wonder what metrics they are looking at to figure out that it's
| "Fast Growing", under "Viral adoption" and "A leading relational
| database brand"? Probably they have some insight that I don't, or
| this is just a press release filled with the usual marketing
| lies.
| pkaye wrote:
| It's the fastest growing database named MariaDB.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Human resources. Mariadb commit and changes activity is
| significantly higher than postgres
| ksec wrote:
| Most are either sticking with MySQL ( which is still working
| fine ) or moved to PostgreSQL. MariaDB is sort of in a very odd
| position.
|
| Had Oracle completely abandoned MySQL like they did with
| Solaris it would have been an easier choice to move to Maria.
| Instead they nurture it like they did with Java.
|
| Although I am wondering if they will ever release 9.0.
| holoduke wrote:
| We are running mariadb for many years on a 50k request per
| second app. Works pretty fine. Why should we migrate to
| postgress? I know many mid sized projects relying on MariaDb.
| It's a stable database proven in many different scenarios.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Solaris might not get Linux level updates, but cool stuff
| like hardware memory tagging by default on SPARC has been
| done during Oracle ownership.
|
| Most mainstream OSes are yet to catch up to Solaris SPARC on
| this regard.
| gk1 wrote:
| "Leading" is a meaningless marketing term you use when you
| can't say "#1". And I say that as a marketer.
| ahoka wrote:
| I assume it's in the market where people actually pay for a
| database and make choice of software other than "what's in
| Debian".
| renewiltord wrote:
| Bloody hell. MySQL is the juggernaut of DBs. I guess I lived in
| an echo chamber with my huge Postgres love.
|
| But I echo the other comments in that I search for MySQL even
| if I'm using MariaDB.
| bduerst wrote:
| MySQL is typically the "M" in LAMP stacks, which was a large
| portion of the web 2.0 CMS takeover (long, long ago it feels
| like).
|
| I think SQLite came close to challenging it in the early
| 2010s with it's mobile app adoption.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I don't know why anyone would use it outside of the need for
| some legacy mysql stuff or something. For me it is always
| postgresql or sqlite (I have never had to work with a nosql
| solution) depending on the situation.
| yrgulation wrote:
| I am an almost daily user of mariadb. However, when i google
| anything mariadb query wise i instead type mysql. As the two
| dialects are nearly identical but there is more documentation
| available for the mysql search keyword on google.
| pradn wrote:
| There's an interesting push-and-pull here. Keep the existing
| dialect to make it easy to switch, or add differentiating
| features that may introduce dialect incompatibility. An issue
| as old as time for SQL DBs.
| abirch wrote:
| Microsoft's infamous embrace and extend strategy.
|
| Word Perfect works with Word, but Word doesn't work with
| Word Perfect.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Word Perfect doesn't have anyone to blame but themselves,
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8163741
| tomxor wrote:
| Same here. Only time I search for mariadb is when it's
| mariadb specific configuration.
| johncena33 wrote:
| You should use bing or duckduckgo. I've been hearing lately
| on HN that they are many orders better than Google.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Many orders? Come on. I have had better results on one or
| the other and flip between them but not "orders of
| magnitude" different.
| contravariant wrote:
| At searching? I can't comment on bing but duckduckgo is
| _different_ , not necessarily better. In fact for vague
| matches and context sensitive terms it's quite a bit worse
| than google.
| grepfru_it wrote:
| definitely not duckduckgo. bing has been on par, with
| technical searches but lacking otherwise
| tomxor wrote:
| Keep in mind this is changing over time. Search engines
| do not stand still, I keep bouncing between Google and
| DDG, the former has been steadily decreasing in quality
| and the later increasing to the point that I now use DDG
| first.
|
| I'm not necessarily saying your opinion at this moment in
| time will change, only that you should re-evaluate it
| occasionally.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Why not DDG? I switched from Google to DDG a few years
| ago, and have been satisfactorily using it since.
| [deleted]
| bool3max wrote:
| I have found the opposite to be the case.
| ransom1538 wrote:
| Funny. A super vocal wrong opinion dominates. Yeah, no. MariaDB
| is everywhere, mysql is the master of all stored production
| content, no one uses postgres, and people just query mysql not
| MariaDB.
| capableweb wrote:
| Super vocal? Wrong? I'm not even making any claims, I'm just
| pointing to data I have available to me, and question their
| statements with the caveat that probably they have different
| data available than me.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I don't know why anyone would use it outside the need for some
| legacy MySQL stuff or something. For me, it is always
| PostgreSQL or SQLite (I have never had to work with a NoSQL
| solution) depending on the situation.
| adventured wrote:
| > Probably they have some insight that I don't, or this is just
| a press release filled with the usual marketing lies.
|
| Definitely typical marketing lies. They're IPO'ing precisely
| because it's a very good time to get out. There's no more
| upside left in MariaDB as a database/brand/business and the
| stock market is still high.
| pengaru wrote:
| MariaDB the company has also made acquisitions in the space,
| Clustrix for example.
| achillean wrote:
| It does look like it's growing but not at a crazy rate while
| MySQL has been declining:
|
| https://imgur.com/gallery/XJ3mDzz
| capableweb wrote:
| Cool! Shodan is a very useful tool, too bad it's not worth
| paying for it for me. As someone who is not a user, would you
| mind posting the graphs for the rest of the software I put
| into Google Trends? The full list would be MariaDB, mysql,
| PostgreSQL, mongodb and SQL Server
| achillean wrote:
| Sure, here you go:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/iTuuc94
|
| Btw Shodan Trends (https://trends.shodan.io) is available
| to members as well. Membership costs a one-time payment of
| $49 for a lifetime account upgrade
| (https://account.shodan.io/billing/member). You can only do
| 100 Trend queries per month (if it's not yet cached) but it
| doesn't require a subscription.
| eatonphil wrote:
| It was my impression that many distros alias mariadb as mysql
| because it's the capital-f Free version so when you install the
| default distro mysql you are actually installing mariadb.
|
| Edit: in fact I think that if you search "default" on this page
| these are all the distros that do this.
| https://mariadb.com/kb/en/distributions-which-include-mariad...
| mdasen wrote:
| I think this was more common years ago. MySQL and MariaDB
| have diverged more in the years since which means that people
| want to know which they're installing. For example, RedHat
| Enterprise Linux used MariaDB as the default in RHEL 7, but
| RHEL8 splits them back out.
|
| https://mariadb.com/kb/en/incompatibilities-and-feature-
| diff...
|
| While they're still quite similar and many of the differences
| might not be something that you hit, there are enough
| differences that it should be explicit.
| cptaj wrote:
| But search queries of everyone using either DB on a day-to-
| day, high level development basis will probably just search
| for mysql and get better results. This is definitely what
| drives this google trend
| awill wrote:
| This was really surprising. Back when RHEL 7 launched, it
| really looked like MariaDB was going to take over from
| MySQL. It doesn't look that way anymore. I suspect the
| reason is that Maria diverged too much, and people didn't
| want the risk of using something that they couldn't migrate
| away from.
|
| Regardless, where possible, I use non-relational. When
| relational is required, I use Postgres.
| Kinrany wrote:
| Can you link any good arguments for defaulting to non-
| relational?
| wayoutthere wrote:
| Simpler, more flexible data model along with speed /
| storage efficiency (you're not updating many indexes so
| writes are much simpler). Your transaction layer data
| model should be as flat as possible; enrich with
| relational data in your analytics systems and data
| warehouses to optimize query speed.
| endymi0n wrote:
| Beware however that this flexibility and initial ease is
| more often than not a slippery slope into chaos.
|
| This article put it really well in my opionion: There are
| no schemaless databases, just the ones with an explicit
| schema and the ones with their schema defined in a couple
| hundred places in code.
|
| One of them is slightly easier to start out with, the
| other to evolve, maintain and communicate (double serving
| as self-documentation) across multiple engineers.
|
| https://orangematter.solarwinds.com/2015/02/24/schemaless
| -da...
| PeterCorless wrote:
| The Internet is usually not presented to you in real-time
| in 3rd normalized form. There are times when you can
| control the data sources, but many times you will be
| presented with data in real time, and you cannot spend
| the time to normalize everything.
|
| A lot depends on the data you have, and the data you
| anticipate. If you have well-controlled data sources,
| sure, 3rd normalized form and tables with JOINs.
|
| But sometimes you have to deal with the data you're
| handed. Denormalized and only, at best, semi-structured.
| Then it's time for NoSQL.
|
| i.e., choose the right tool for the data you have and the
| queries you need. Don't try to force-fit the data to a
| tool just because you're used to it.
|
| Analogy: use a hammer for a nail, and a screwdriver for
| screws.
| lowercased wrote:
| I use the terms 'schema-on-read' vs 'schema-on-write'.
| But that might be too techy for some folks, even if I'm
| talking to 'database' people...?
| [deleted]
| cblconfederate wrote:
| mysql is also trending down
| datavirtue wrote:
| Don't understand why it's taking this long since we have
| had a far superior free software alternative for many many
| years now...postgres
| TylerE wrote:
| MySQL was popualar for the same reason PHP4/5 was
| popular.
|
| It let lazy "coders" churn out simple brochure sites
| without having to think.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| One needs good enough, not superior
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| FreeBSD is odd: you install it with `pkg install
| mariadb-{server,client}` but you start it with `service
| MySQL-server start`.
|
| (The package name is moderated by the FreeBSD ports team, but
| the port (MariaDB) installs its service and gives itself
| whatever service name it desires.)
| lbhdc wrote:
| I am surprised how low postgres ranks in those trends. I guess
| I have been in an echo chamber for too long, because my
| perception was that it was much more pervasive.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| I've not seen any company which using a RDBMS, that isn't on
| PG for the last 5 years, and I'm freelance and bounce around
| a lot..
|
| Other kinds of DBs it's all over the shop, but yeah, PG seems
| very dominant here...
| mtberatwork wrote:
| > I've not seen any company which using a RDBMS, that isn't
| on PG for the last 5 years
|
| Facebook: https://engineering.fb.com/2021/07/22/data-
| infrastructure/my...
| williamdclt wrote:
| I don't think Facebook is hiring a lot of freelance, it's
| probably not the sort of company the person you're
| answering to is talking about when they say "here".
| pjmlp wrote:
| I have seen Postgres between 2014 and 2018 at one specific
| customer, everyone else to where I go it is either Oracle
| or SQL Server.
|
| It depends pretty much where one bounces around.
| vidar wrote:
| Wordpress and PHP in general are very MySQL heavy I think.
| That is a lot of volume.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Yet mariadb is what is installed most often for mysql usage
| requirements.
| evanelias wrote:
| These days, most smaller users go with a managed DBaaS
| such as AWS RDS, and on RDS MySQL gets _massively_ more
| usage than MariaDB.
|
| I build schema management software for MySQL and MariaDB,
| https://www.skeema.io, used by several hundred companies.
| Among my userbase, MariaDB is a tiny minority, to such an
| extent that I wonder if it's worthwhile to continue
| keeping up with their new quarterly release schedule.
| oblio wrote:
| > These days, most smaller users go with a managed DBaaS
| such as AWS RDS, and on RDS MySQL gets massively more
| usage than MariaDB.
|
| Do they, do? I expect all small stuff to be on old school
| VPSes with included managed DBs.
|
| Has the world of cheap PHP hosting finally moved on? I'd
| be super surprised.
| ransom1538 wrote:
| "Has the world of cheap PHP hosting finally moved on? I'd
| be super surprised. "
|
| No 90% of wordpress which is 60% of the internet use
| small local hosted mysql instances. No they don't setup a
| vm on aws.
| evanelias wrote:
| WordPress is very widely used, but it is not "60% of the
| internet" (or even 60% of the web) based on any
| statistics I see anywhere. Some sites say it's 60% of all
| CMS's; perhaps you may be transposing these stats?
|
| Anyway, among WP usage, I would confidently wager that
| the percentage running in "cheap VPS" setups is declining
| fast each year. Many different reasons for this. The
| heyday of smalltime independent bloggers (on WP or
| otherwise) was a decade ago. Large SaaS hosts (including
| the official wordpress.com) make up a big chunk of WP
| hosting. Security is a huge issue with self-hosted WP.
| Companies using WP as a CMS aren't going to use a tiny
| VPS.
|
| There are still a _lot_ of WordPress instances on cheap
| VPS setups, don 't get me wrong. I just don't believe
| it's still such a major force where it would make up a
| majority of _new_ mysql /mariadb installations anymore.
| lioeters wrote:
| They're probably thinking of stats published by W3Techs.
|
| > WordPress is used by 65.3% of all the websites whose
| content management system we know. This is 43.3% of all
| websites.
|
| https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cm-wordpress
| lewantmontreal wrote:
| > Simply track your desired schema state in a repo of
| CREATE statements, and the tool figures out how to apply
| any changes to your tables and routines.
|
| Wow, this sounds extremely useful, great job! Does anyone
| know anything like this for Postgres?
| evanelias wrote:
| Thanks! I know of a couple Postgres tools that work in a
| declarative fashion: migra [1] and sqldef [2].
|
| Migra is Postgres-specific. Its model is similar to
| Skeema's, in that the desired-state CREATEs are run in a
| temporary location and then introspected, to build an in-
| memory understanding of the desired state which can be
| diff'ed against the current actual state. (This approach
| has also been borrowed by other recent tools, including
| Prisma Migrate [3]). In this manner, the tool doesn't
| need a SQL parser, instead relying on the real DBMS to
| guarantee the CREATE is interpreted correctly with your
| exact DBMS version/flavor/settings.
|
| In contrast, sqldef supports multiple databases,
| including Postgres and MySQL (among others). Unlike other
| tools, it uses a SQL parser-based approach to build its
| in-memory understanding of the desired state. As a DB
| professional, personally this approach scares me a bit,
| given the amount of nonstandard stuff in each DBMS's SQL
| dialect. But I'm inherently biased on this topic. And I
| will note sqldef's author is a core Ruby committer and
| JIT author, and is extremely skilled at parsers.
|
| [1] https://databaseci.com/docs/migra
|
| [2] https://github.com/k0kubun/sqldef
|
| [3] https://github.com/prisma/prisma-
| engines/blob/main/migration...
| eatonphil wrote:
| Is it possible MariaDB registers itself as MySQL? No clue
| how your system works or how you figure out which DB it
| is.
| evanelias wrote:
| To clarify, my comment was based on anecdotal discussions
| and interactions with users, issue reports, feature
| requests, user enthusiasm for new MySQL
| support/functionality vs relative lack of enthusiasm for
| new MariaDB support/functionality, etc.
|
| The Skeema CLI is able to accurately identify your
| database version and flavor (which is necessary for its
| functionality), there is no notion of MariaDB registering
| itself as MySQL. But the CLI does not contain telemetry,
| so I don't have hard stats on MySQL vs MariaDB usage.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Nice tool, hadn't heard of it before.
|
| > These days, most smaller users go with a managed DBaaS
| such as AWS RDS
|
| I think there's likely a long tail of small (non-tech)
| businesses that run WordPress (or Drupal/Joomla) on a
| traditional shared web host (the kind that only offers
| PHP and MySQL/MariaDB).
| robjan wrote:
| I'd say that ignoring the whales, PHP and MySQL
| (especially WordPress) are the opposite of the long tail.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I agree, and even some of the whales are using php/MySQL
| albeit in some cases, highly modified versions of php.
| trey-jones wrote:
| MariaDB is more closely aligned with Wordpress and PHP in
| terms of licensing. I sort of assumed that most users of
| (FL)OSS who had previously used MySQL would be using
| MariaDB by now, but based on comments in this topic I must
| be wrong.
| abirch wrote:
| Netezza, Greenplum, Red Shift and CoachroachDB are all
| Postgres forks. Postgre is pretty popular as well, at least
| for the recruiters who spam me.
| acatton wrote:
| CockroachDB is not a fork of Postgres, it's a NewSQL
| database written from scratch, compatible with the
| PostgreSQL protocol, and aiming at being SQL compatible
| with Postgres.
|
| I think you were thinking about YugabyteDB which is a
| wrapper/fork around Postgres.
| abirch wrote:
| No, I was flat out wrong about CockroachDB. Thanks for
| correcting me.
| PeterCorless wrote:
| A more accurate chart may be at DB-engines.com:
|
| https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_trend/relational+dbms
|
| MariaDB is the 8th most popular SQL RDBMS.
|
| MySQL is definitely far more popular, as is PostgreSQL, but
| MariaDB still continues to rise in popularity (107.11 now, up
| +13.22 in the past year), though its relative ranking remains
| at #12 on the overall list:
|
| https://db-engines.com/en/ranking
|
| [EDIT: MySQL fell -28.69 to 1214.68 in the past year.
| PostgreSQL rose +58.42 to 609.38 in the past year.]
| PeterCorless wrote:
| Also, in case anyone was interested, on DB-engines.com, the
| real ground giving way is for Microsoft SQL Server. While it
| is still at the #3 spot on the list, its absolute score
| dropped -73.88 to 949.05 -- a year-over-year drop of -7.2% of
| total.
|
| * MySQL's drop in the index was only 4.5%
|
| * PostgreSQL's rise was 9.5%
|
| * MariaDB's rise was 12.3%
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > MariaDB seems to be the least popular of the big databases
|
| You linked to a page that charts the relative prevalence of
| product-names in Google searches.
|
| That's not popularity; that's just googlers choosing the search
| term they think is most likely to find them the result they
| want.
| jakear wrote:
| HN-specific Trends of DB comments and stories echo your view
| (in a chamber-like fashion...): MySql popular since early days,
| Postgres recently growing to overcome it, Maria nowhere to be
| seen
|
| https://jacksonkearl.github.io/HackerTrends/?query=%22mariad...
| bbarnett wrote:
| mariadb is the default on every Linux distro, except for
| Oracle's clone of redhat.
|
| MySQL, for example, isn't in debian any more. And hasn't been
| for years.
|
| All thanks to oracle, of course.
|
| As well, most people search for mysql, when looking for mariadb
| issues.
|
| Mariadb is far, far more popular than mysql these days.
| rlpb wrote:
| In Ubuntu, both MySQL and MariaDB are available. MySQL is in
| the main component, unlike MariaDB which is in universe.
| Reverse dependencies in the Ubuntu archive are built against
| MySQL, not MariaDB.
| evanelias wrote:
| > Mariadb is far, far more popular than mysql these days.
|
| It depends greatly on what metric you're using. If you look
| at the huge list of large, well-known tech companies using
| MySQL, nearly all of them are literally using MySQL (or a
| derivative like Percona Server), not MariaDB.
|
| In combination these companies employ several hundred
| thousand engineers, building products on top of MySQL, not
| MariaDB.
| scandox wrote:
| It might just be me but recently I have found myself a bit
| uncertain or nervous about the true compatibility of MySQL and
| MariaDB. I also find I sometimes don't know which I'm connecting
| to between all the different systems I'm running...which I used
| to be quite relaxed about, but now makes me a tad jittery.
| evanelias wrote:
| They're not drop-in replacements for each other, haven't been
| for years. Each has some unique features that the other lacks.
| eatonphil wrote:
| The Alpine Wiki has an informal blurb about it. The wiki
| doesn't seem to think there's a huge difference.
|
| https://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Mysql#MariaDB_vs_MySQL
| evanelias wrote:
| The Alpine Wiki isn't written by MySQL/MariaDB experts, and
| is focused on an installation / very basic administrative
| perspective; from that angle they're not too different. But
| they've substantially diverged in terms of internals,
| advanced administrative functionality, and overall focus.
|
| source: I've been working in this space for 19 years, at
| scales ranging from tiny startups, to largest known mysql
| installation in the world.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Yeah true. Any good comparisons you can point us at?
| evanelias wrote:
| This is from a very reliable source but is 4 years old
| (pre-MySQL 8):
| https://www.percona.com/blog/2017/11/02/mysql-vs-mariadb-
| rea...
|
| Separately you can search for "What's new in MySQL 8"
| type posts, nearly everything there is unique to MySQL.
| Some of the 5.7 stuff too, like native json column type.
|
| Ditto for recent MariaDB releases, btw! To be fair they
| have some cool stuff that MySQL lacks, such as system
| versioned tables, Oracle DB compatibility layer, native
| column types for uuid and inet6 (IPv6 addresses), etc.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Mariadb has an oracle compatibility layer??? Ah but it's
| at the query layer not the wire protocol. Still very
| cool.
| pizza234 wrote:
| The amount of informations around is surprisingly poor;
| it's hard to find technical information.
|
| At least a significant difference is MariadDB's addition
| of several specialized engines - see
| https://mariadb.com/kb/en/storage-engines:
|
| - MariaDB ColumnStore: Column-based
|
| - Mroonga: Full text search
|
| - OQGRAPH: Graph storage
|
| - SphinxSE: Full text search
|
| Where the above use cases are required, it's actually a
| big deal. A common use case may be FT searches - MySQL's
| support is a trainwreck, and I have the suspicion that
| Oracle has little to no interest in it.
| tehbeard wrote:
| Curious to learn more about Mroonga. FT has been a
| sticking point for several sites we've built, and the
| search daemons (typesense, meilisearch) tend to not as
| accurate as we'd like.
| sroussey wrote:
| Same. I'll have to take a look as well. The built-in FT
| going back to MyISAM and later was ok for small things,
| but needed to remain in memory wand dint handle lots of
| updates well. At one point we split a table into shards
| on the same database to ease locking issues.
|
| One thing I wish were available was a hybrid btree and
| inverted index. If you are multi tenant then you want
| your search to only happen within the one user's data --
| not across all accounts and then filter for the one user.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-01 23:01 UTC)