ALL COVERED TOPICS

NoSQL Benchmarks NoSQL use cases NoSQL Videos NoSQL Hybrid Solutions NoSQL Presentations Big Data Hadoop MapReduce Pig Hive Flume Oozie Sqoop HDFS ZooKeeper Cascading Cascalog BigTable Cassandra HBase Hypertable Couchbase CouchDB MongoDB OrientDB RavenDB Jackrabbit Terrastore Amazon DynamoDB Redis Riak Project Voldemort Tokyo Cabinet Kyoto Cabinet memcached Amazon SimpleDB Datomic MemcacheDB M/DB GT.M Amazon Dynamo Dynomite Mnesia Yahoo! PNUTS/Sherpa Neo4j InfoGrid Sones GraphDB InfiniteGraph AllegroGraph MarkLogic Clustrix CouchDB Case Studies MongoDB Case Studies NoSQL at Adobe NoSQL at Facebook NoSQL at Twitter

NAVIGATE MAIN CATEGORIES

Close

MariaDB: All content tagged as MariaDB in NoSQL databases and polyglot persistence

Storage technologies at HipChat - CouchDB, ElasticSearch, Redis, RDS

As per the list below, HipChat’s storage solution is based on a couple of different solutions:

  • Hosting: AWS EC2 East with 75 Instance currently all Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
  • Database: CouchDB currently for Chat History, transitioning to ElasticSearch. MySQL-RDS for everything else
  • Caching: Redis
  • Search: ElasticSearch
  1. This post made me wonder what led HipChat team to use CouchDB in the first place. I’m tempted to say that it was the master-master replication and the early integration with Lucene.
  2. This is only the 2nd time in quite a while I’m reading an article mentioning CouchDB — after the February “no-releases-but-we’re-still-merging-BigCouch” report for ASF. And according to the story, CouchDB is on the way out.

Original title and link: Storage technologies at HipChat - CouchDB, ElasticSearch, Redis, RDS (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/1/6/how-hipchat-stores-and-indexes-billions-of-messages-using-el.html


Google moves from MySQL to MariaDB

Jack Clark for TheRegister quoting Google senior systems engineer, Jeremy Cole’s talk at XLDB:

“Were running primarily on [MySQL] 5.1 which is a little outdated, and so we’re moving to MariaDB 10.0 at the moment,”

I’m wondering how much of this decision is technical and how much is political. While Jack Clark’s points to the previous “disagreements” between Google and Oracle, when I say political decisions I mean more than this: access to the various bits of the code (e.g. tests, security issues), control over the future of the product, etc.

Original title and link: Google moves from MySQL to MariaDB (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/12/google_mariadb_mysql_migration/


Google sniffs at MySQL fork MariaDB: Yum. Have an engineer

The Chocolate Factory has sent an engineer to the MariaDB Foundation, which looks after the fork’s codebase, community and ecosystem, and has MySQL daddy Monty Widenius himself as its lead developer.

That’s no validation. Just keeping an eye on an alternative for a piece of technology you are heavily using1.


  1. Google, Facebook, and probably quite a few others have entire internal teams dedicated to MySQL.  

Original title and link: Google sniffs at MySQL fork MariaDB: Yum. Have an engineer (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/08/google_backs_mariadb/


Wikipedia Adopts MariaDB

The technical details of Wikipedia’s migration from MySQL to MariaDB:

As a read-heavy site, Wikipedia aggressively uses edge caching. Approximately 90% of pageviews are served entirely from the edge while at the application layer, we utilize both memcached and redis in addition to MySQL. Despite that, the MySQL databases serving English Wikipedia alone reach a daily peak of ~50k queries/second. Most are read queries served by load-balanced slaves, depending on consistency requirements. 80% of the English Wikipedia query load (up to 40k qps) are typically handled by just two database servers at any given time. Our most common query type (40% of all) has a median execution time of ~0.2ms and a 95th percentile time of ~50ms. To successfully use MariaDB in production, we need it to keep up with the level of performance obtained from Facebook’s MySQL fork, and to behave consistently as traffic patterns change.

As you can see in this post, the only “political” point made is hidden within true reasons:

Equally important, as supporters of the free culture movement, the Wikimedia Foundation strongly prefers free software projects; that includes a preference for projects without bifurcated code bases between differently licensed free and enterprise editions. We welcome and support the MariaDB Foundation as a not-for-profit steward of the free and open MySQL related database community.

Slightly different to Wikipedia Migrates to MariaDB.

Original title and link: Wikipedia Adopts MariaDB (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/22/wikipedia-adopts-mariadb/


Wikipedia Migrates to MariaDB... but facts are facts

Jon Buys:

There was, and continues to be, concern over Oracle’s treatment of the open source competitor to their own Oracle database. I personally have wondered what motivation, if any, Oracle has to maintain MySQL. They may simply be milking the revenue stream created by MySQL AB until the well goes dry. Since MariaDB is surpassing MySQL in performance and community goodwill, that day may come sooner rather than later.

A couple of little known things:

  1. Oracle has been house for InnoDB since 2005. InnoDB was and continues to be the default, recommended engine for MySQL. Before and after Oracle acquired MySQL through Sun Microsystems.
  2. Oracle has been house for Sleepycat’s BerkleyDB since 2006. Those products are definitely not dead. Community-wise maybe they haven’t put much effort into extending it.

Facts are facts.

Original title and link: Wikipedia Migrates to MariaDB… but facts are facts (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://ostatic.com/blog/wikipedia-migrates-to-mariadb


MySQL 5.6 vs. MariaDB 10.0

A post on SkySQL blog comparing the recently released version of MySQL with MariaDB:

MySQL vs MariaDB

✚ MariaDB 10.0.0 is still alpha with some of the features still under development.

OpenSUSE and Fedora plan to replace MySQL with MariaDB in their corresponding distributions, but that’s not because of the technical capabilities of MySQL.

Original title and link: MySQL 5.6 vs. MariaDB 10.0 (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.skysql.com/blogs/max-mether/mysql-56-vs-mariadb-100


Proposed Fedora 19 Feature: Replace MySQL With MariaDB

Very long discussion on the Fedora mailing list considering and planning the replacement of MySQL with MariaDB:

Recent changes made by Oracle indicate they are moving the MySQL project to be more closed. They are no longer publishing any useful information about security issues (CVEs), and they are not providing complete regression tests any more, and a very large fraction of the mysql bug database is now not public.

From the reply of Andrew Rist (Oracle):

We’ve been following the discussions to replace MySQL with MariaDB in Fedora, and would like to provide additional data to help the community make the most informed decision. Instead of switching**the default to MariaDB 5.5 we would like to propose that Fedora instead integrate MySQL 5.6. Switching to MariaDB would be going backwards, as their releases usually lag by at least 6 months. The differences between MariaDB 5.5 and MySQL 5.6 are quite significant, with major improvements in both performance and stability [1] , as well as additional features and improved security [2].

Another interesting bit mentioned in the thread by Henrique Junior:

OpenSUSE is dumping MySQL in the next release 12.3 […]

I went through the thread twice and I’m not sure which is the conclusion. But it’s starting to look like Oracle’s approach to managing MySQL is not appreciated by some.

Roland Bouman

Original title and link: Proposed Fedora 19 Feature: Replace MySQL With MariaDB (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://markmail.org/message/q5fk6lxlniq2p6gz?q=python#query:python+page:1+mid:d5g3hvo4l2hu4jbc+state:results


Monty Widenius About NoSQL, Big Data, and Obvioulsy MySQL and MariaDB

The interview Dmitry Sotnikov1 had with Monty Widenius was published on so many places that I had a hard time deciding which to link to. Anyways, there are a couple of comments and corrections that I’d like to suggest:

The whole thing with the “new NoSQL movement” started with a blog post from a Twitter employee that said MySQL was not good enough and they needed “something better,” like Cassandra.

That’s not quite correct. The “NoSQL movement” debuted in 2009 when the guys from Last.fm organized an event about “open source, distributed, non relational databases” where they invited people from companies like Cloudera, LinkedIn, StumbleUpon, etc. to talk about the solutions they were building to responde to their platforms’ special requirements. But as papers like Bigtable: A distributed storage system for structured data and Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-value Store prove, NoSQL solutions have been in production way before 2009.

I can’t find the original article, but I did find a follow up a bit later where it was said MySQL would be dropped for Cassandra.

I can help find that article as it was posted on this blog: Cassandra @ Twitter: An Interview with Ryan King

The main reason Twitter had problems with MySQL back then, was that they were using it incorrectly.

I don’t think there are many examples in the history of software where a private platform benefited from more scaling advice than Twitter. Judging by how many solutions have been suggested, a possible Twitter IPO will be at risk of IP law suites.

The current state is that now, three years later, Twitter is still using MySQL as their main storage for tweets. Cassandra was, in the end, not able to replace MySQL.

That’s true. What’s also true is that at that time Cassandra was at version 0.9 and and that having to invest into a new databases was considered riskier than investing into more hardware and hiring MySQL experts.

The main reason NoSQL became popular is that, in contrast to SQL, you can start using it without having to design anything. This makes it easier to start with NoSQL, but you pay for this later when you find that you don’t have control of your data (if you are not very careful).

I assume that this is how a vendor would present flexible data models as a drawback. It is also one of the most dangerous misconceptions about NoSQL, i.e. NoSQL databases require no data modeling. The reality is that most of the time using a NoSQL database will require a lot more thinking and analysis of the data models and data access patterns. There are no blueprints, no normalized forms, and no ORMs to hide everything away.

As soon as data can’t fit into memory, SQL generally outperforms NoSQL.

Where’s the proof? According to the data I have, there’s no comparison between let’s say Cassandra and MySQL.

For anything else, you have to write a program and it’s very hard to beat a SQL optimizer for complex things, especially things that are automatically generated based on user requests (required for most web sites).

That’s true. Except when:

  1. most of the people don’t know how to write those SQL queries—search StackOverflow for a random sample of what I mean
  2. getting everything out of your database requires using vendor specific solutions
  3. there’re those moments when the optimizer decides to change the execution plan in such a way that brings down your whole service

The problem with Hadoop is that there is no known business model around it that ensures that the investors will get back 10X money that they expect. Because of that, I have a hard time understanding how Cloudera can survive in the long run.

???

Everything else in the interview is spot on.


  1. Dmitry Sotnikov: COO at Jelastic 

Original title and link: Monty Widenius About NoSQL, Big Data, and Obvioulsy MySQL and MariaDB (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://blog.jelastic.com/2013/01/21/are-nosql-and-big-data-just-hype/


MariaDB 5.5 Connection Thread Pool

MariaDB-5.5.21-beta is the first MariaDB release featuring the new thread pool. Oracle offers a commercial thread pool plugin for MySQL Enterprise, but now MariaDB brings a thread pool implementation to the community!

I’ve checked the timestamp of the post and knowledge base article three times. It is 2012.

Original title and link: MariaDB 5.5 Connection Thread Pool (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)


Jelastic Database Marketshare: MySQL, MongoDB, MariaDB

Jelastic, a company offering a cloud platform for Java server hosting, has published some stats about the databases used by their over 7000 users:

Jelastic Database Marketshare

While it would be wrong to generalize these results to absolute database marketshare, it is interesting nonetheless to see that MongoDB is already outrunning PostrgeSQL being the second most used database and that CouchDB, which was added only one month ago, is already used by 5% of Jelastic’s users. MySQL detains the first position with over 40% users or differently put double the number of the second place (MongoDB).

These numbers would be even more interesting if they would account for some real usage stats like database sizes or query volumes.

Mat Keep

Original title and link: Jelastic Database Marketshare: MySQL, MongoDB, MariaDB (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://blog.jelastic.com/2012/01/23/database-marketshare-january-2012/


Dynamic Columns in MariaDB: a SQL to NoSQL Bridge

Dynamic columns allows you to store a different set of columns for every row in the table. […]

Dynamic columns works by storing the extra columns in a blob and having a small set of functions to manipulate it. The functions exist both in SQL and in the MariaDB client library to allow you to manipulate the data where it suits you best.

Nice addition to MariaDB that will hopefully make it to MySQL in the future. You can select, add, update and filter on a dynamic column (nb: though I couldn’t find if you can define indexes on dynamic columns or filtering will require full table scans). The only drawback I see at the current implementation is that dynamic columns are positional not named.

Original title and link: Dynamic Columns in MariaDB: a SQL to NoSQL Bridge (NoSQL databases © myNoSQL)

via: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2011/05/dynamic-columns-as-bridge-between-sql.html