On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> pls send answers directly to me (so not clutering the list). Thanx
Well the list might be interested in these choices too.
> I have the following situation Apache Web server under Linux and we must decide
> which DB server to use.
> The choice can be Microsoft SQL/NT or Oracle/Linux.
> I'm a teleworker at the moment, so get this in mind too.
OK... I'm also in the process of choosing a DB, only I have more options.
Oracle, Sybase ASE, Sybase ASA, MySQL, PostgreSQL.
> Please give me PROS and CONS of both desicions.
The con of MS SQL Server is the only ways you can connect to it from Linux
right now are as follows:
o Use freetds and it's newly aquired tds7 support. This is buggy, and
freetds doesn't support some basic features (such as placeholders).
o Use DBI::Proxy. The proxy server on Win32 is single threaded,
non-forking. Not much use in a real situation.
o Use DBD::ODBC with the odbc-odbc bridge. This is a for-pay alternative.
Works OK, but think of all the layers you're going through: DBI ->
DBD::ODBC -> odbc bridge -> net -> odbc bridge -> odbc subsystem -> MS SQL
odbc driver -> MS SQL. Yuck.
o Use DBD::ODBC with the free XML based ODBC bridge. This is the same as
the above, only much much slower.
o Frig with MS SQL until you can get it working with the Sybase ct
libraries. This is simple enough if using 6.5 (an appalling database
product IMHO), but next to impossible with SQL Server 7.
> Let me tell you what I'm thinking about this.
> First they are pushing me to use MicrosoftSQL, and I have a little more knowledge
> about this (than A/O solution), but as I think this desicion lack of flexibility
> 'cause :
>
> - All queries will be passed from DBI::ODBC to NT-ODBC and then to SQL server.
>
> - hard to make changes in configurations via Internet.
> - I think I can find more help on Apache/L->Oracle/L vs. Apache/L->MSQL/NT
>
> - The DBD::Oracle is well tested and is written from the creator of the DBI
> interface.
Those things are all true. The DBD::Oracle driver is extremely good. If you
have MS SQL experience, why not consider Sybase? It has the same (mostly)
SQL syntax (transact SQL) - but without the horrible bugs in Microsoft's
implementation, and it's extremely reliable. 11.0.3 is available for free
on Linux/x86.
> what is the price difference.
I don't know about MS SQL Server for web use - but I believe it's in the
few thousands of dollars range. Oracle is something like 10k. Yes, it's
more expensive. You get what you pay for.
> ANY OTHER pros-cons pls.
With Oracle you won't be rebooting your database server.
> (I don't have problem with learning something new I mean Oracle /i love this/,
> but it will be good if I can start coding as soon as possible. I mean the common
> DB stuff, not the ORACLE internals :"))
If you go with Oracle, get your hands on "Oracle PL/SQL programming" by
O'Reilly. First class book. If you go with Sybase, don't worry about buying
expensive books - their documentation is second to none. I think there's
about 2 books about running Sybase simply because the supplied docs are so
good. Compare that to the number of MS SQL Server books or Oracle books.
--
<Matt/>
Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases.
Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions
Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org
Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.
