> Additionally, it is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than the > mighty, mighty PostgreSQL. It is an accepted fact that PostgreSQL > developers don't lie. The PostgreSQL developers say that they are faster > than most commercial databases in their normal fsync mode. Therefore, by > communicativity of implication, MySQL is faster than most (if not all) > commercial databases.
I do have to agree with Jochem here -- I would certainly sacrifice speed, regarding some issues. And time-to-market is important as well. Remember no FKs with MySQL? "cause you can do that in your application"... ahum. > >>I think that your (one of) statement is not needed - InterBase seems to > >>have been the first, with Oracle coming along later and thinking "This > >>thing is so funky! Quick, we must build one!". At the moment though, I > >>can only name the following 5 multiversioned engines: > >> > >>MySQL/InnoDB, PostgreSQL, Oracle, Firebird, Interbase > >> > >>Do you have any others to add? > > > >ThinkSQL ( www.thinksql.co.uk ) and I believe MimerSQL as well > >( www.mimer.com ) but I'm not sure. Then there are a lot of smaller > >db engines that use the same technique. And of course the storage > >engine inside www.netfrastructure.com - also created by the original > >creator of InterBase. But it's more refined and faster - obviously, the > >effect of modern hardware and less worries about memory etc... > > > Mimer seems to have a fair bit in common with MS SQL Server. Not really. In some ways, they're more advanced - at least, more SQL <whateverthelatestspecis> compliant. In others, they're a bit lacking. Visual tools, for example ;-) >For > instance, one of their big features is Optimistic Conflict Control. They > do claim "non-locking transaction control" though. I haven't looked at it thorougly yet. > >>Yukon definitely won't be > > > >I do believe Yukon get's a snapshot transaction isolation - any word > >on how they are going to implement this? > > > In an amazingly dodgy manner? Given the amount of time they've been > working on it, I'd say we're either going to see something entirely new > (mutliversioning perhaps) or something "bolted on" to the old model > that's just taking forever to implement and debug. *g* ... still, I'm interested to see how they pulled it off ... either way, they will probably say that multi-versioning is something very new!! And that MS has figured it out!! (kinda like they did with, well, everything else) > >>Admittedly, I haven't read through the licence, but the assurances you > >>get on the licence document are a lot more comforting than the "If SQL > >>Server 2000 shaves your cat, it's not our problem. If SQL Server 2000 > >>shaves your neighbour's cat due to you installing a device with terrible > >>drivers, you'll pay our court costs when we get sued." > > > >Don't forget the "you can use this software whereever you like except in > >true critical areas" clauses... > > > And the "You will not do compatibility testing! Documents relating to > this are available! Make do with those!!!" clause. :-D Aren't licenses great... (don't check mine) > >>>>8. MS SQL's additional tools may be of interest to you (see MS's product > >>>>page, particularly their product comparison page for the number of nice > >>>>things included with SQL Server). The vast majority of this stuff exists > >>>>for MySQL as well though, you will have to get your hands on it > >>>>seperately though. > >>>> > >>>no comment. > >>I should have really mentioned that MS SQL Server comes with a hot > >>backup tool, an added extra for MySQL. That said, there are alternatives > >>to MS's tool that make backups a lot more managable and scriptable. > > > >I bet one of the reasons why there are sooooo many MSSQL tools is > >that "where there's MSSQL, there's money". No offence, but from what > >I see sometimes in open source worlds (I had this with Firebird too) is that > >I - as a tool vendor - get questions like "you create a tool for an open > >source product and you're asking MONEY for it? tss tss"... Well, bread, > >table and so on :-) > > > Which miserable sod would question your right to charge cash for your > tools? Oh, believe me - it happened. More than once, actually. Needless to say, I'll just continue making tools and earning money for it... > Nothing is stopping them from creating a free alternative and > your contribution to the free software world in other ways is quite > notable. The fact that you even support the big open source databases is > an excellent push for funky software that comes with source code!! I also know of several of these initatives saying "I can do that" and become a total failure afterwards when they find out it's actually quite (ahum) a bit of work ;-) > >>>Obviously true. Except for the license price of MS SQL - there's > >>>always the "how to get a discount" guide :-D > >>> > >>For anyone reading this message, allow me to sumarise the document that > >>Martijn has pointed out above. > >> > >>Have a 3 hour conversation with an MS Sales rep at your office and > >>mention all of the following terms: --8<-- snipped secret document part :-) > > > >woohoo, darn, there goes the secret *g* ... It does work though. With > >pretty much any company out there. >> > >>I could only name a few reasons for migrating away: > >> > >>* Management all get labotomies over the weekend and decide to migrate > >>to MS SQL Server. :-) > >>* You're a total cheapskate and refuse to pay for a commercial licence > >>and want to develop an app that links to libmysqlclient but will not be > >>under the GPL. > >>* You want to execute statements such as this: ALTER TABLE table ADD > >>INDEX sum ((col1 + col2 + col3)); > >>* You want to be able to ROLLBACK DML statements > >>* You're bored on a Saturday night and want to prove to your friend that > >>Foxpro is a sick joke that nobody "got" when it was released. > >> > >> > > > >I can think of a few others: > > > >- stored procedures (not finished with MySQL) > >- triggers (not even on the roadmap with MySQL?) > >- check constraints (please, Heiki?!) > > > >I'm a constraint-freak, if you like. I want my database to check the > >data. In all sorts of possible ways... > > > > > Triggers are slated for the 5.1 timeframe, along with FK constraints for > all table types (including BDB?). I did note the FKs, couldn't find the trigger though. Views: yes, I like those too. Let them add "domains" as well and I'd be even more happy. > Check constraints have beem discussed in various presentations (at the > 2003 MySQL conference, they were mentioned specifically with regard to > MySQL's compliance to SQL92 and SQL:1999). > The stored procedure support in MySQL looks like it will come along to a > very complete fruition - Yep, quite nice. >with the ability to plug in modules that can > execute PL/SQL and T-SQL. Once we get some form of T-SQL support (from > some community project I would like to be a part of ), I will definitely > work on writing a proxy program that allows you to use MySQL instead of > MS SQL Server, just to annoy his Billness. :-) With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL Server. Upscene Productions http://www.upscene.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
