On 5/31/05, Dave Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MySQL is free, but otherwise it's a pretty inferior option to MSSQL IMO, in > features, scalability, ease of admin etc. Many of the MySQL features that > bring it anywhere near the same level of functionality are brand new, FWIW.
This is just wrong. I've been a MS-SQL DBA responsible for 28 processors of MS-SQL and I've built dozens of web apps on MS-SQL *and* MySQL so I'm definitely familiar with both. Though in all fairness, I do some work for MySQL and speak about it frequently :) MySQL has been missing views and storedprocs for years. And it's managment tools have been more akin to MS's osql and isql commandline utilities. Both fair points. But pretty inferior? No way. The standard demonstration of MySQL's competitiveness with MS-SQL is the well-know eWeek article (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,103972,00.asp) shows that MySQL (4.0 in the tests) paced Oracle and simply kicked the butt of everything else, with MS-SQL coming in at the bottom. There are certainly some criticisms that can be level at this test, but it's still the only completely transparent (in the sense of code is available, tests were specified, etc) and somewhat independent that's publically availble that I've seen. There are plenty of other real-world examples, especially in the data warehousing world. MySQL scales to dozens of processors on big iron (SGI Irix for example, AS/400, etc). The network storage engine brings distributed, in-memory redundant databases to the table. And if you need to internationalize your application, there is simply no competition with MySQL as far as support of mutliple character sets and collations at the *column* level. A few other useful features that trump MS-SQL for many applications -- per-table table handlers (don't need transactions on a table? use MyISAM). Brain-dead simple to run the memory cache. Full and early support of 64-bit processors (makes it easier to throw memory at the memory cache -- run your whole DB in memory if you want). Very high-performance JDBC drivers (one *glaring* deficiency of MS, though the open source jTS driver seems pretty good) which is especially important to CF (though the Merant drivers seem ok). That's just for starters. Interestingly now that views and stored procs are in MySQL (5.0 branch, beta as of now) they actually are doing a better job of meeting the ANSI SQL 2003 standard since they don't have to worry about backwards compatibility (ironic, huh)? Stored procs still have performance problems since they're basically 1.0 as you suggest, same with views to a lesser extent. And if you happen to get a knowledgable DBA, MySQL has *far* more ways to improve performance than MS-SQL (2000 at least) which can boost performance even more. So "pretty inferior option" just doesn't hold water. -- John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint (blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com (email) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:208084 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
