
Why would you use a commercial database anyway? - acangiano
http://programmingzen.com/2010/10/05/why-would-you-use-a-commercial-database-anyway/
======
chime
> As an advocate for the DB2 team I often hear people ask, “Why would you use
> DB2 when MySQL is free and Open Source?”. The truth is that countless
> companies use DB2 because they know it ends up being cheaper in terms of
> both time and cost, when compared to Open Source database solutions.

It's as if PostgreSQL doesn't even exist. DB2 vs MySQL is comparing an
aircraft carrier to a kayak. MySQL isn't the only open-source DB out there and
it is nowhere close to the best option in most enterprise cases.

~~~
jasonlotito
He isn't comparing DB2 to MySQL. He's comparing DB2 to open source databases.
The question he hear's often is about MySQL. I really think he's just using
MySQL in the example question rather than saying using the more cumbersome
"Why would you use DB2 when [insert a random open source database solution
here] is free and Open Source?"

~~~
chime
> I really think he's just using MySQL in the example

That's the problem I'm pointing out. He is using MySQL to show how much better
DB2 is. MySQL is a very poor representative of open-source databases for
enterprise use. Most of the good things he said about DB2, apply to PostgreSQL
but not MySQL. Yes you can have data-compression on the fly in PostgreSQL. Yes
you get over a decade of proven security and reliability. Yes you get utmost
performance if you take the time to learn. Yes you get native XML.

Businesses of all sizes should look into open-source databases but not base
their decision solely on whether MySQL has that feature or not. MySQL is a
small subset of what's out there.

~~~
rbranson
... and if time is money you can also pay a consulting company a few hundred
bucks to assess your hardware config and crank out a postgresql.conf that will
run great. It's likely you'd have to do the same thing for DB2.

An enterprise RDBMS is a huge decision, a platform a business is built on. At
this point in time, chaining a business I'm part of to an expensive commercial
database product which offers no substantive benefits and is subject to the
whims of product VPs doesn't seem like the best business decision.

------
lukev
> (up to 2GB of RAM and 2 CPU cores)

Except that this particular market segment is almost certainly better off with
an open source DB.

Also: why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database
comparisons? MySQL just doesn't cut it in many important ways. Not to say it's
not useful for some tasks, but it really isn't in the same league as the major
databases, at all.

~~~
digitallogic
Saddly MySQL has become the Paris Hilton of open source databases. It is
famous for no other reason then the fact that it is famous.

~~~
mseebach
Not quite. Around 10-12 years ago when dynamic web-programming for the masses
started to take off, _nothing_ , and especially not Postgres, paralleled MySQL
in low barrier to entry.

------
njharman
>DB2 Express-C has some limitations when it comes to los tipos of resources
that it can use (up to 2GB of RAM and 2 CPU cores). Fear not though, it’s
still plenty useful for many startups or small businesses

That is called vendor lock in. Start with this, build with this, once you're
dependent and need to grow then we'll extort our share of your profit.

Avoiding vendor lock in is a major reason Open Software exists.

~~~
kenjackson
You get vendor lock in whether or not is Open Source, unless there is an Open
Source project that will instantly convert all my code to use another vendor,
including my tests.

While Stallman's desire is not financial profit (which I really think should
be the core of your argument, not the lock-in), the lock-in of a GPL-based
product chain is just as hard to get out of than one built from IBM (actually
quite possibly even harder).

~~~
KaeseEs
There is, it's called DBIx::Class and if you want to learn about it go to
<http://mibbit.com/chat/#dbix-class@irc.perl.org>

~~~
kenjackson
IRC chat? I did look it up, and from a 30s perusal it looks like it targets
the lowest common denominator for SQL DB, much less cubes and ETLs. Did I miss
something?

------
gdulli
He's right that open-source vs. commercial is orthogonal to the attributes you
should really be assessing. Lumping in MySQL with PostgreSQL just because
they're both free is a disservice to PostgreSQL.

The author goes out of his way to differentiate Oracle from DB2, but paints
all open-source databases as toys. Really, you think I'm not going to notice
that there's a significant tier, that most companies probably fall into,
between a 50 MB database and a 50 TB database that PostgreSQL can handle
beautifully?

------
SkyMarshal
TLDR:

 _"Today IBM is announcing new pricing
([http://www.db2teamblog.com/2010/10/db2-express-ftl-gets-
more...](http://www.db2teamblog.com/2010/10/db2-express-ftl-gets-more-
features.html)) to extend the benefits of our support and commercial edition
to a greater number of startups and small businesses. You can get the
commercial Fixed Term License for about $1,500 per server, per year. (I pay
more per year to host this blog.) Aside from 24/7 support, regular fix pack
updates, and the clustering option for SQL Replication and HADR, this DB2
Express-C license will also allow you to use up to 4GB of RAM and 4 CPU cores.
(There is an Express edition if you’d prefer to pay a one time fee, rather
than a yearly one, or if you’d like to pay through other metrics such as per
user.)" (also, don't forget to check out the free DB2 Express-C, a starter
version whose only limitations are 2GB RAM and 2 Cores)_

------
GiraffeNecktie
A little tangential but why would the author be spending $1500 a year to host
a blog. Is IBM also his hosting provider?

~~~
acangiano
I host several semi-popular blogs, plus a few other sites on a server in the
cloud (with The Planet). I get a few million hits a year, and pay $135 a month
to keep it up.

~~~
EvilTrout
I don't think it's fair to say it costs you more than $1500 to host one blog
when in fact it's a series of sites. It gives people the wrong impression of
how much the database costs relative to hosting.

(As an aside, I run a site that gets over two million hits A DAY, I pay
nothing for my database, and about $100/mo for hosting.)

~~~
acangiano
> I don't think it's fair to say it costs you more than $1500 to host one blog
> when in fact it's a series of sites.

I agree. That was poor wording on my part.

> and about $100/mo for hosting

Who do you host with?

~~~
EvilTrout
I have a dedicated server I bought myself years ago and host it at a coloc in
downtown Toronto.

------
superjared
Does anyone here have feet in both camps? I'd like to read that person's
opinion.

~~~
ebiester
I've worked with both proprietary DBs, particularly MSSQL and Oracle, and free
DBs, particularly MySQL and PostgreSQL.

I would trust Postgres for any production application -- however, Oracle has a
few nice solutions when it comes to business intelligence that I haven't found
for the free databases. Further, so many solutions (such as the major ERPs)
come on big hardware databases that mid-sized companies already have the
necessary database. Why use Postgres when you already have a license (or
three, including development and staging/training) for a commercial database?

Certainly, at the Fortune 500 level, Oracle and DB2 have advantages that are
YAGNI for us. (For example, Oracle RAC is a pretty elegant solution that isn't
right for serving Facebook, but certainly adds more convenience than it costs
in complexity for a large company.) You can have a big cluster of databases
and use a single point of control across the cluster. I just haven't seen the
same tools for Postgres.

I would never suggest that Facebook should be served up by Oracle. It just
wouldn't make sense considering the cost. However, for a large company with a
dozen (or many more) large interrelated applications, both consultingware and
internal, used on three continents? I wouldn't want to manage a Postgres
cluster....

(I am, of course, oversimplifying things.)

------
jtchang
I must be in the really cheap camp but $1500 is still a lot for a startup just
trying to get off the ground. I rather take that money and spend it on
marketing. If DB2 really wants to break into the startup segment they need to
offer awesome deferred pricing. As in I don't really want to pay until it
really makes sense.

~~~
mseebach
You're not cheap. Any business willing to spend $1500 where is doesn't need to
is just waiting to have it's lunch eaten.

------
igrekel
Many commercial databases are good and work very well. The difference is when
you are stuck with a small ridiculous problem and are cash-strapped and in a
hurry.

Google searches turn up far many more results for solutions to OS software
problems than for commercial products. Also forums, knowledge bases and
communities are not that convenient to access for many of the "enterprise"
vendors. Finally there is the issue of the eventual price being "call-us" for
many commercial solutions (although it seems like it is not the case here with
DB2).

Open source products often just better fit the dynamics I'm in when starting
something.

------
known
He is _not_ comparing FOSS databases with Commercial databases.

