Oh yeah! That's a sensitive button because damagement around here have seriously made such statements. This despite the fact that we have rescued customers by migrating them from MySQL to Oracle in order to fix database "problems." Just the other day with a VP, Walt and I had to dispel myths and untruths about Oracle performance and database administration. (We made a good tag team and the VP was thoroughly defeated and had to slink away :-)
Our "benchmark" test were by no means thorough. We ran the same Perl scripts against the 3 different databases with the same data. The only thing different was the DBD connection. Even though our tests were simple, it didn't take long to show that MySQL just can't hack multi-user access. If MySQL ever does lick the row locking and concurrent access problems then it's another story. Steve -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 10:26 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L LOL! Guess I pushed the right button! Thanks for the benchmark info. Jared "Orr, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/28/02 08:05 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: > It's faster than Oracle. Oh... You hit a hot button!!! MySQL is faster at performing 1 query in 1 database session and not much more. But "comparing" the performance of a database engine without considering concurrent multi-user OLTP activity is very short-sighted. I just finished some benchmark tests of MySQL ISAM, MySQL InnoDB, and Oracle using Perl DBD. MySQL was fast with individual queries, inserts or updates but it barfed as soon as I cranked up the number of sessions. Oracle flew through 30 concurrent sessions with each session performing many different queries. I was eager to further crank up the number of sessions (via a loop in Perl) but MySQL crapped out so there was no point going any further. MySQL ISAM does table level locking and one session would put all the others in a wait state. MySQL InnoDB does row level locking but the InnoDB developer (Heikki Tuuri) conceded that it InnoDB also barfs with multi-user select, inserts, updates and deletes so he's still working on it. The open source MySQL community still has a lot of work to do to catch up to Oracle's performance when it comes to any real world multi-user database activity. MySQL faster than Oracle? This is a pearlescent example of benchmark myopia. IMHO, Steve Orr Bozeman, Montana -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 6:35 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L On Monday 28 January 2002 03:45, Marin Dimitrov wrote: > maybe u could consider some free databases? > > of course the performance, functionality and the ease of use won't be > comparable to MS SQL but many sites use such databases quite successfully Actually, the most popular of the free databases is mySql, which is likely faster than MS Sql. It's faster than Oracle. Jared -- -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Orr, Steve INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
