Does it make sense to consider using an open-source database? More to the point, does it make sense to choose an open-source database instead of SQL Server when cost is your primary concern? Interesting questions—I want to share some insights. I touched on this topic in my previous commentaries "In the Express Lane with SQL Server" and "MSDE: Get More than You Pay For". I want to revisit the topic because I've been reading some articles in the mainstream press about open-source databases such as MySQL or Ingres and how they compare favorably to database solutions that you have to pay for.

Let me set the stage for this discussion. Imagine that you're planning a new application rollout. You use Microsoft technology regularly (but not exclusively), and SQL Server is on the short list of database platforms you're considering, but price is a significant factor. Let's assume that up-front cost to purchase is the only thing that matters—of course, that's not true, but I want to keep the discussion simple. MySQL, Ingres, or any other free, open-source database can look attractive if up-front license costs are your primary concern. Can Microsoft play in that game? The short answer is probably. (Don't you love a journalist who's willing to go out on a limb with a definitive opinion? <g>) Microsoft SQL Server Desktop Engine (MSDE) is a viable free option in many scenarios when you can roll out a free, open-source database. However, there are some caveats to that statement. First, MSDE isn't completely free, but buying a single license for any product that MSDE comes with (e.g., Microsoft Access) gets you free redistribution rights for MSDE's core pieces. You can build an application and distribute it to an infinite number of users for free. To read more about how to get and distribute MSDE, see "Register for MSDE 2000 Redistribution Rights". Second, the Query Governor prevents MSDE from scaling to meet your high-end database needs. However, if you're worrying about high-end databases, it's likely that a completely free open-source database probably won't meet your needs either.

Now, let's talk about the options that will exist in a few months when SQL Server 2005 ships and SQL Server 2005 Express Edition becomes commercially available. SQL Server Express is the new version of MSDE that's part of the SQL Server 2005 product family. Yes, it's cheating to compare current open-source products to software from Microsoft that's not commercially available yet, but I'm doing it anyway. SQL Server Express will be totally free—no caveats. The product's only limitation will be that it won't use more than one physical processor—though the OS it's running on can certainly use more. However, you'll get more CPU juice on a multi-processor box with hyper-threading because SQL Server Express will use the additional logical processor that hyper-threading provides. Maximum database size is 4GB, and the buffer pool for SQL Server memory is limited to 1GB.

Are there open-source databases that will provide you with more theoretical scalability? Yes, but if you're running an application that requires more processing capabilities than a free version of SQL Server Express there probably isn't a free lunch for you. You'll pay whatever vendor you end up working with for that database processing one way or another. But SQL Server Express will present an honest-to-goodness free option for a huge number of small departmental database application needs.

You can put together staged benchmarks that showcase circumstances in which a free, open-source database can do things that MSDE or SQL Server Express can't. However, I suspect that most users who can benefit from a free, open-source database can also benefit from a free version of MSDE or SQL Server Express. I sense that some people look to open-source databases because they don't consider a free version of a Microsoft database as a viable candidate. I'm not saying that it's the best solution in all cases—there are cases in which an open-source database provides more bang for your buck, but it's unfortunate when customers think they need a free solution and wrongly assume that Microsoft doesn't have any story to tell in the database arena.

End of Article


You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.

Reader Comments

I have just read this most one-eyed piece of journalism on the subject of Open Source databases.

No investigation has been performed on the open-source competitors. The author has simply gone on the premise that if it's free it will probably be inferior. He mentions in passing. the 2 main open-source options:

MySQL is an excellent free solution for small scale database implementations. It is the world's most popular open-source database. Here's a link which was forgotten in the debate; http://www.mysql.com/it-resources/case-studies/

Ingres has only recently become open-souce. Before it became open-source, it stood on its own two feet as a commercial product. There are hundreds of enterprise-wide customers in the world already using Ingres as their database. CA, the owner of Ingres, has made it the de-facto embedded database in all of its own products. For this reason, there are probably hundreds more users running Ingres within another CA product (I say 'probably' because CA does not release figures of sales of Embedded Ingres).

I suggest we pay a little more attention to these products before launching a reposte for SQL Server. Know thy enemy.

Anonymous User- February 28, 2005

Article Rating 1 out of 5

I have to concur with the last commenter. I was looking to this article to see some actual analysis between SQL Server and open-source databases like MySQL and Postgresql (which is now available natively for windows and supports a lot of the same functionality as sql server).

Instead, the article simply indicates that there will be a free version of sql server 2005 and some of what its features and limitations are. It's fluff. Where is the analysis? The feature comparisons? Performance testing? Bah.

-jonathan snook

Anonymous User- February 28, 2005

Article Rating 1 out of 5

This article has no value in any way. This article is pure MS comercial material.

Please give us some numbers, facts next time.

Anonymous User- February 28, 2005

Article Rating 1 out of 5

The article is wrong on the MSDE Redist front, you do not require to own any MS product, this changed almost 2 years ago

Anonymous User- February 28, 2005

Article Rating 3 out of 5

Any SQL Server application will benefit from switching to the Firebird database, which is completely free in every sense of the word.

It is smaller than MSDE, easier to install and manage, faster than SQLServer and has enough features to compete with Oracle and DB2.

See: http://www.firebirdsql.org and http://www.fyracle.org

Oh, by the way, did I mention that Firebird's installed base runs into the millions, is as popular as MySQL and even has a larger installed base than Access for that type of application? http://www.fyracle.org/shownews.php

Anonymous User- March 02, 2005

Article Rating 1 out of 5

Let us not be too quick to judge. Certainly the article only presents one view; that MSDE is competitive with Open Source on the issue of price. Certainly that article does not discuss other aspects of the Open Source debate such as support options, time to market, resolution of issues, availability of developers, interoperability with other tools and components, and much else. This is unfortunate. However, just because the article is narrow in focus does not translate to Open Source is better either. It just means the article is narrow in focus.

Also, I do not see where the article says that Open Source is inferior. The only real claim the article makes is that MSDE can compete with Open Source on an up-front cost basis.

Anonymous User- March 05, 2005

Article Rating 3 out of 5

The article actually makes clear that SQLServer free stuff cannot yet compete, but will be able to compete "in a few months". Let's go ahead and play the author's game of 'Yeah But We'll Be Better Soon' because he does also admit "it's cheating to compare current open-source products to software from Microsoft that's not commercially available yet, but I'm doing it anyway". So what are the limits of the not-yet-GA SQL Server 2005 Express Edition? 1 CPU. Maximum DB size 4Gb Memory limit 1Gb.

Do we really have to consider this offerering as viable? It is not uncommon for a database to contain individual tables larger than 4Gb. Even for small-scale users, MySQL would beat this hands-down. Ingres would beat this without breaking sweat - The Ingres r3 (OpenSource) offering is not a scaled down version of the product.

The article does imply that OpenSource is inferior to SQLServer. "You can put together staged benchmarks that showcase circumstances in which a free, open-source database can do things that MSDE or SQL Server Express can't". We should also add 'SQLServer' to the list. The author seems to believe that SQL/Server would win all benchmarks against all OpenSource databases. Let's face it. The OpenSource stuff isn't slow, it isn't difficult to use, it's not limited to running on Windows and it has great scalability.

Why not offer a more honest argument? Such as: Many companies will be afraid to move from their existing SQL/Server architecture because although it's expensive and it's sometimes slow and unreliable, it's better the devil you know.

Anonymous User- March 08, 2005

Article Rating 1 out of 5

Hmm, we seem to have a religious argument emerging:

Argument A - Hallelujah and praise the wizard of Redmond for he will deliver solutions to all of your needs. You need only embrace the .Net way and a few non-standard SQL extensions. It's free for the first 4mb and quite a bargain after that. Never waste time on problems that you don't have to solve again. Let Bill make all of your decisions for you.

Argument B - Dude, have you not opened yourself to the Source of all that is free? No royalties means free, free, free. Don't concern yourself with how you'll pay for support or solve your technical issues in a timely manner. The Source shall provide all and it's free. Oh, and as an accolyte of the Source, you're entitled to spend years of your life modifying it your way.

Argument C - I'm a professional so it means I know something therefore so the best choice is going to be the one I say it is. Why it's such a good choice that it must be the right choice in every situation. In fact, I'll never make the other choice again. Why waste time evaluating each new situation on it's own merits? I'll just blindly choose the same thing every time. After all, it's better, right?

Anonymous User- March 08, 2005

Article Rating 3 out of 5

I wish everyone would stop calling MySQL "free"! Take a look folks. That went away last year. Unless you are willing to make the source code for your application available to the world, and how many businesses would, you have to pay $595 PER YEAR PER SERVER. That's a waste of money for many small businesses. MSDE is free. SQL Express 2005 is free. Firebird is free. Postgre is free. I'll stick with one of those. The author's point is that Microsoft is starting (I emphasize starting) to get serious about the open source competition. Now if they would only wake up to the fact that they aren't even close to competing in high availability realm, they might have something.

Anonymous User- March 17, 2005

Article Rating 4 out of 5

Let's be clear about this, none of these Opensource rdbms offerings will be free in the long-term. There are support costs to consider. However, the author made clear that support costings were outside the scope of this discussion.

To add to the last contributor's note; CA's Ingres r3 offering is free - unlike MySQL, anyone who embeds Ingres into their application does not have to release their application code into the public domain.

If we are going to look at the longer term costs, CA's full production support for Ingres r3 is from $2000 per year.

Anonymous User- March 18, 2005

Article Rating 2 out of 5

 
 

ADS BY GOOGLE