Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
KEVIN ZEMBOWER wrote: The organization hired an outside consultant to evaluate which SQL engine to go with. This is what he sent to us: ... SQL Server 2000 is a complete Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) that also includes integrated analysis functionality for OLAP and data mining. SQL Server 2000 meets the data and analysis storage requirements of the largest data processing systems and commercial Web sites, yet at the same time can provide easy-to-use data storage services to an individual or small business. I don't know whether the consultant wrote this himself, or if it came from somewhere. Answer: It came from somewhere. The above paragraph is a word-for-word quote from this Microsoft document: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/sql/deploy/upgrdmigrate/mysql.asp Regards, PeterG -- Peter Gulutzan, Software Architect MySQL AB, www.mysql.com Are you MySQL certified? www.mysql.com/certification -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
I'm a system administrator for a small (200 people) branch of a large university/medical school. I've worked with MySQL and use it as my database of choice for web-based dynamic content. I would not consider myself an experienced, professionally-trained, knowledgeable database administrator, more of a database user who's had to administer his own database systems because no one else's around. My organization is trying to decide on an SQL engine for general purpose database work within our organization. The one professional database administrator we have works mainly in MS Access, but is looking forward to building on her beginner-level understanding of SQL and becoming an SQL administrator. Right now, the largest database in our organization is a flat-file structure with less than 500,000 records in it, which could conceivably grow ten-fold in the next five years. The organization hired an outside consultant to evaluate which SQL engine to go with. This is what he sent to us: === MySQL is an open-source database management system (DBMS). It uses client/server architecture and is a multi-threaded, multi-user database server. MySQL was designed for speed; therefore, it does not provide many of the features provided by relational database systems, such as sub-queries, foreign keys, referential integrity, stored procedures, triggers, and views. In addition, it contains a locking mechanism that is not adequate for tables containing many write actions occurring simultaneously from different users. It is also lacking in reference to support for software applications and tools. SQL Server 2000 is a complete Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) that also includes integrated analysis functionality for OLAP and data mining. SQL Server 2000 meets the data and analysis storage requirements of the largest data processing systems and commercial Web sites, yet at the same time can provide easy-to-use data storage services to an individual or small business. The architecture of Microsoft SQL Server supports advanced server features, such as row-level locking, advanced query optimization, data replication, distributed database management, and Analysis Services. Transact-SQL (T-SQL) is the SQL dialect supported by SQL Server 2000. === I don't know whether the consultant wrote this himself, or if it came from somewhere. It could be Microsoft advertizement, for all I know. Most of the terms aren't familiar to me, like sub-queries or referential integrity. I feel out of my depth evaluating this comparison. My questions are: 1. Is this a fair comparison of MySQL and MS SQL Server 2000? 2. Is this up to date with the current status of MySQL? 3. Would the deficiencies pointed out in MySQL, if true, apply to the type of work we envision? Granted, I haven't given you all much information about what we hope to do with an SQL engine, but I don't think it will be very sophisticated. Thank you for all your thoughts and comments. -Kevin Zembower - E. Kevin Zembower Unix Administrator Johns Hopkins University/Center for Communications Programs 111 Market Place, Suite 310 Baltimore, MD 21202 410-659-6139 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
Hi Kevin, I'm a system administrator for a small (200 people) branch of a large university/medical school. I've worked with MySQL and use it as my database of choice for web-based dynamic content. I would not consider myself an experienced, professionally-trained, knowledgeable database administrator, more of a database user who's had to administer his own database systems because no one else's around. My organization is trying to decide on an SQL engine for general purpose database work within our organization. The one professional database administrator we have works mainly in MS Access, but is looking forward to building on her beginner-level understanding of SQL and becoming an SQL administrator. Right now, the largest database in our organization is a flat-file structure with less than 500,000 records in it, which could conceivably grow ten-fold in the next five years. The organization hired an outside consultant to evaluate which SQL engine to go with. This is what he sent to us: === MySQL is an open-source database management system (DBMS). It uses client/server architecture and is a multi-threaded, multi-user database server. MySQL was designed for speed; therefore, it does not provide many of the features provided by relational database systems, such as sub-queries, foreign keys, referential integrity, stored procedures, triggers, and views. In addition, it contains a locking mechanism that is not adequate for tables containing many write actions occurring simultaneously from different users. It is also lacking in reference to support for software applications and tools. SQL Server 2000 is a complete Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) that also includes integrated analysis functionality for OLAP and data mining. SQL Server 2000 meets the data and analysis storage requirements of the largest data processing systems and commercial Web sites, yet at the same time can provide easy-to-use data storage services to an individual or small business. The architecture of Microsoft SQL Server supports advanced server features, such as row-level locking, advanced query optimization, data replication, distributed database management, and Analysis Services. Transact-SQL (T-SQL) is the SQL dialect supported by SQL Server 2000. === I don't know whether the consultant wrote this himself, or if it came from somewhere. It could be Microsoft advertizement, for all I know. Most of the terms aren't familiar to me, like sub-queries or referential integrity. I feel out of my depth evaluating this comparison. Referential integrity is supported for InnoDB type tables - with MySQL, each table can have a different type, each table handler (in the MySQL system) can handle different features. With InnoDB, there's Referential integrity, transaction support and and also a different locking mechanism - which is more suited for lots of readers and concurrent writers. My questions are: 1. Is this a fair comparison of MySQL and MS SQL Server 2000? Fairly fair :-) 2. Is this up to date with the current status of MySQL? Triggers, views and Stored Procedures are expected to be included in MySQL 5. The next version of MSSQL will include a new locktype/transaction isolation, one which works pretty much the same as InnoDB - versioned locking. 3. Would the deficiencies pointed out in MySQL, if true, apply to the type of work we envision? Granted, I haven't given you all much information about what we hope to do with an SQL engine, but I don't think it will be very sophisticated. If it's not very sophisticated, MySQL will do just fine. In my opinion. There are other free and open source DBMSes as well, that do have procedures, triggers, views, subqueries and the like. With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird 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]
Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
Martijn, thank you very much for your analysis. I hope others will continue to join in. With regard to your point quoted below, are you referring to PostgreSQL, and would that be a stronger competitor to MS SQL Server 2000 than either the current version of MySQL or MySQL 5? Thanks, again, for your thoughts. -Kevin Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/07/03 12:12PM 3. Would the deficiencies pointed out in MySQL, if true, apply to the type of work we envision? Granted, I haven't given you all much information about what we hope to do with an SQL engine, but I don't think it will be very sophisticated. If it's not very sophisticated, MySQL will do just fine. In my opinion. There are other free and open source DBMSes as well, that do have procedures, triggers, views, subqueries and the like. With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird 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] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
Hi Kevin, Martijn, thank you very much for your analysis. I hope others will continue to join in. So do I :-) With regard to your point quoted below, are you referring to PostgreSQL, and would that be a stronger competitor to MS SQL Server 2000 than either the current version of MySQL or MySQL 5? I have no experience with PostgreSQL - although, from what I've heard and read, it's quite capable - but not easy to get going on Windows. One other open source RDBMS would be Firebird - see www.firebirdsql.org Especially the newer release (1.5). Don't get fooled by that version number - it's a fork of the Borland InterBase code, which has been around for about 20 years now. I'm looking forward to MySQL5 to see what's new and how it's implemented. As for what engine would be the best for you - it all depends on what you're going to do. For example, I frequently use triggers and check constraints in my database applications, with MySQL, I can't do this. With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird 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]
Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
I have not work with it but postgres is supposed to work great in /BSD/Linux/Unix/solaris environment Which platform are you using? :-) Nestor A. Florez Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/7/2003 10:08:53 AM Hi Kevin, Martijn, thank you very much for your analysis. I hope others will continue to join in. So do I :-) With regard to your point quoted below, are you referring to PostgreSQL, and would that be a stronger competitor to MS SQL Server 2000 than either the current version of MySQL or MySQL 5? I have no experience with PostgreSQL - although, from what I've heard and read, it's quite capable - but not easy to get going on Windows. One other open source RDBMS would be Firebird - see www.firebirdsql.org Especially the newer release (1.5). Don't get fooled by that version number - it's a fork of the Borland InterBase code, which has been around for about 20 years now. I'm looking forward to MySQL5 to see what's new and how it's implemented. As for what engine would be the best for you - it all depends on what you're going to do. For example, I frequently use triggers and check constraints in my database applications, with MySQL, I can't do this. With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird 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] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
It sounds like a copy and paste from Microsoft, but that is just my guess. An objective recommendation with show pluses and minuses of both. It most definitely does not sound like this consultant is qualified to suggest a database product. What about PostgresSQL, Oracle, Sybase, DB2? They all at least match the features of SQL Server, except maybe Postgres, and they run on more platforms and are more scalable. MySQL does have transaction support in the form of InnoDB tables. Sub-queries are now supported in v4, although not the fastest implementation. The other areas MySQL is lacking. When I first started using MySQL, subqueries were not supported and I found it frustrating. Since then I have truly acquired in depth knowledge of left and right joins and other techniques that I really didn't have before. I think I now write better, faster queries because I was forced to learn a new technique. I now have better knowledge of SQL. Not sure if that was a good or bad point. If your needs are simple, you can get by without stored procedures and triggers. Referential integrity can be enforced in your front-end code. Here is a question: how much would it cost to give everyone a copy of the database to play with? On their laptop, home computer? Nothing for MySQL or Postgres. What front-end will be used? Your options for SQL Server are kind of limited. On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 11:39 AM, KEVIN ZEMBOWER wrote: I don't know whether the consultant wrote this himself, or if it came from somewhere. It could be Microsoft advertizement, for all I know. Most of the terms aren't familiar to me, like sub-queries or referential integrity. I feel out of my depth evaluating this comparison. My questions are: 1. Is this a fair comparison of MySQL and MS SQL Server 2000? 2. Is this up to date with the current status of MySQL? 3. Would the deficiencies pointed out in MySQL, if true, apply to the type of work we envision? Granted, I haven't given you all much information about what we hope to do with an SQL engine, but I don't think it will be very sophisticated. Thank you for all your thoughts and comments. -- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
Nestor, thanks for your question. The platform will actually be dictated by the SQL engine, not the other way around, which is more typically the case. If we go with MS SQL Server, we'll build a separate host, NT I would guess, to host it. I'm only responsible for Unix and Linux boxes here, so it'll be the responsibility of another group. If we go with MySQL or PostgreSQL (the only databases I have any familiarity with), I'll probably be responsible for setting up and configuring a new Linux (Debian) host, and maintaining it. The in-house database administer would be the administrator, and I would just offer any help that I could, which might not be much. Thanks, again, for writing. -Kevin Nestor Florez [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/07/03 01:18PM I have not work with it but postgres is supposed to work great in /BSD/Linux/Unix/solaris environment Which platform are you using? :-) Nestor A. Florez Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/7/2003 10:08:53 AM Hi Kevin, Martijn, thank you very much for your analysis. I hope others will continue to join in. So do I :-) With regard to your point quoted below, are you referring to PostgreSQL, and would that be a stronger competitor to MS SQL Server 2000 than either the current version of MySQL or MySQL 5? I have no experience with PostgreSQL - although, from what I've heard and read, it's quite capable - but not easy to get going on Windows. One other open source RDBMS would be Firebird - see www.firebirdsql.org Especially the newer release (1.5). Don't get fooled by that version number - it's a fork of the Borland InterBase code, which has been around for about 20 years now. I'm looking forward to MySQL5 to see what's new and how it's implemented. As for what engine would be the best for you - it all depends on what you're going to do. For example, I frequently use triggers and check constraints in my database applications, with MySQL, I can't do this. With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird 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] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
What about MySQL-max/SAPDB? I believe that it was completely omitted in the consultants report but has many of the features you need. I would also like to ask a question; do you need stored procedures, triggers or views for your application? There are a number of high volume, high quality sites that do very nicely without them. Why are you different? John Griffin -Original Message- From: KEVIN ZEMBOWER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server Nestor, thanks for your question. The platform will actually be dictated by the SQL engine, not the other way around, which is more typically the case. If we go with MS SQL Server, we'll build a separate host, NT I would guess, to host it. I'm only responsible for Unix and Linux boxes here, so it'll be the responsibility of another group. If we go with MySQL or PostgreSQL (the only databases I have any familiarity with), I'll probably be responsible for setting up and configuring a new Linux (Debian) host, and maintaining it. The in-house database administer would be the administrator, and I would just offer any help that I could, which might not be much. Thanks, again, for writing. -Kevin Nestor Florez [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/07/03 01:18PM I have not work with it but postgres is supposed to work great in /BSD/Linux/Unix/solaris environment Which platform are you using? :-) Nestor A. Florez Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/7/2003 10:08:53 AM Hi Kevin, Martijn, thank you very much for your analysis. I hope others will continue to join in. So do I :-) With regard to your point quoted below, are you referring to PostgreSQL, and would that be a stronger competitor to MS SQL Server 2000 than either the current version of MySQL or MySQL 5? I have no experience with PostgreSQL - although, from what I've heard and read, it's quite capable - but not easy to get going on Windows. One other open source RDBMS would be Firebird - see www.firebirdsql.org Especially the newer release (1.5). Don't get fooled by that version number - it's a fork of the Borland InterBase code, which has been around for about 20 years now. I'm looking forward to MySQL5 to see what's new and how it's implemented. As for what engine would be the best for you - it all depends on what you're going to do. For example, I frequently use triggers and check constraints in my database applications, with MySQL, I can't do this. With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird 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] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need help comparing MySQL to MS SQL Server
kevin, i tend to think the consultant really just read something that microsoft sent him. it doesn't sound like he's qualified to suggest one database or another. We've been usinf mysql for a year now. We use InnoDB tables, which give us primary key/foreign key constraints and transactions. We've gotten around the lack of stored procedures by putting the necessary logic and checks into the application that inserts/updates the database. We have several tables with 8 million rows, and growing every day. updating rows on the big tables still shows approximately constant time performance. In general, we are extremely satisfied with the product, and have purchased a license (about $400 -- mainly so we can contribute to the cause). When 4.1 becomes stable, we will upgrade in order to get the sub-select capability. I came from an Oracle/Sybase background. Those products have features that mysql does not have, in particular DBA-specific tables, views, and triggers, but you may not need these features. happy to give you more information if you need it. jeff KEVIN ZEMBOWER wrote: Nestor, thanks for your question. The platform will actually be dictated by the SQL engine, not the other way around, which is more typically the case. If we go with MS SQL Server, we'll build a separate host, NT I would guess, to host it. I'm only responsible for Unix and Linux boxes here, so it'll be the responsibility of another group. If we go with MySQL or PostgreSQL (the only databases I have any familiarity with), I'll probably be responsible for setting up and configuring a new Linux (Debian) host, and maintaining it. The in-house database administer would be the administrator, and I would just offer any help that I could, which might not be much. Thanks, again, for writing. -Kevin Nestor Florez [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/07/03 01:18PM I have not work with it but postgres is supposed to work great in /BSD/Linux/Unix/solaris environment Which platform are you using? :-) Nestor A. Florez Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/7/2003 10:08:53 AM Hi Kevin, Martijn, thank you very much for your analysis. I hope others will continue to join in. So do I :-) With regard to your point quoted below, are you referring to PostgreSQL, and would that be a stronger competitor to MS SQL Server 2000 than either the current version of MySQL or MySQL 5? I have no experience with PostgreSQL - although, from what I've heard and read, it's quite capable - but not easy to get going on Windows. One other open source RDBMS would be Firebird - see www.firebirdsql.org Especially the newer release (1.5). Don't get fooled by that version number - it's a fork of the Borland InterBase code, which has been around for about 20 years now. I'm looking forward to MySQL5 to see what's new and how it's implemented. As for what engine would be the best for you - it all depends on what you're going to do. For example, I frequently use triggers and check constraints in my database applications, with MySQL, I can't do this. With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird 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] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jeff Mathis, Ph.D. 505-955-1434 The Prediction Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] 525 Camino de los Marquez, Ste 6http://www.predict.com Santa Fe, NM 87505 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
