samcfug wrote:
The soon to be 4eleased version 4 of MySQl, will definitely bring it into the
mainstream and direct competition with Oracle and SQL2k
(stored procedures and triggers)
Although version 4.0 will be out Real Soon Now(tm), it will be a far cry
from a real cross the board
samcfug wrote:
The soon to be 4eleased version 4 of MySQl, will definitely bring it
into the
mainstream and direct competition with Oracle and SQL2k
(stored procedures and triggers)
Although version 4.0 will be out Real Soon Now(tm), it will be a far cry
from a real cross the board
Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 8:25:27 PM, John Paul Ashenfelter wrote:
snip
If you look at the methodology of the eWeek study (a link that seems
to have been removed since I first read the article), you'll find a
lot of fine print
snip
I've looked all over eWeek's site and can't find the
: Re: eweek MySQL vs Oracle, etc (Re: WOT: MySQL in the
Enterprise)
Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 8:25:27 PM, John Paul Ashenfelter wrote:
snip
If you look at the methodology of the eWeek study (a link that seems
to have been removed since I first read the article), you'll find a
lot of fine
I use phpmyadmin even though it doesn't have everything it's pretty good.
And better than straight command line.
-Original Message-
From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Quoting John Paul Ashenfelter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not to mention the fact that *management tools* are a key feature of
databases. Spend a lot of time using osql in MSSQL? How often do you
schedule jobs using the sp_addjob (know how to figure out the int for
@frequency?).
That is just because
phpmyadmin even though it doesn't have everything it's pretty good.
And better than straight command line.
-Original Message-
From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
samcfug
Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 9:24:51 AM, John Paul Ashenfelter wrote:
eWeek does that for every article with statistics that I've ever
really wanted to read -- details are there, then gone. grr.
Well, looks like this might be it:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,808852,00.asp
: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
I use phpmyadmin even though it doesn't have everything it's pretty good.
And better than straight command line.
-Original Message-
From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday
In M$ SQL7, how do you complete the following:
RESTORE DATABASE MainBiz2
FROM DISK = 'd:\mssql7\backup\MainBiz\MainBiz_db_200301130102.BAK'
WITH RECOVERY,
MOVE 'MainBiz2.mdf' TO 'd:\mssql7\data\MainBiz2.mdf',
MOVE 'MainBiz2.ldf' TO 'd:\mssql7\data\MainBiz2.ldf'
where
I use MySQL-Front (which is discontinued) and ... the MySQL group have a
program called MyCC that basically acts like a enterprise manager (of
sorts). There's also other MySQL guis out there if you look, most are
commercial or shareware.
or simply crap. I've tried them. All of them. I've
If you have hard copies, the story was in the January 6, 2003 edition on
page 16.
-Original Message-
From: Tim Laureska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:48 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: eweek MySQL vs Oracle, etc (Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Paris Lundis wrote:
As far as I am concerned Oracle is a big hunk of overpriced (read too
dam* expensive) crud... sure if you are a bank or some other oversized
monstrosity it is for you... all 5% of the total businesses if even
that...
The only reasonable number that I can think of to
4:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Paris Lundis wrote:
As far as I am concerned Oracle is a big hunk of overpriced (read too
dam* expensive) crud... sure if you are a bank or some other oversized
monstrosity it is for you... all 5% of the total businesses if even
Jon wrote:
for 99% of what I do, mysql handles my needs perfectly.
'Course, I'm doing mostly insert, delete, update, select...
nothing too complicated. I'll be very happy when the next
version comes out that can do subqueries, though.
My sentiments exactly. I can't wait for subqueries.
just don't seem to
work. Although 9i supporting ANSI SQL has made it a little less hated in my
book.
Just my opinion.
Jeff Roberson
-Original Message-
From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 1:48 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: WOT: MySQL
packages. Having SPs organized? Who'd have thunk it?
- Original Message -
From: Roberson, Jeff, Mr (Contractor) ACI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:01 pm
Subject: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
I currently develop in MYSQL, MSSQL, and ORACLE.
My choice by far
: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:04 pm
Subject: Re: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Hmm. Well, I could use the different indexing methods that Oracle
has, it's better implemented transactional support, cursors that
don't suck, and the ability to use a language (PL-SQL/Java) that
actually works like
: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:04 pm
Subject: Re: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Hmm. Well, I could use the different indexing methods that Oracle
has, it's better implemented transactional support, cursors that
don't suck, and the ability to use a language (PL-SQL/Java) that
actually works
Actually do transactions actually work in CF MX w/ ORACLE?
It throws errors here.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:09 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Oh wait,
let me add the wonderful
]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Actually do transactions actually work in CF MX w/ ORACLE?
It throws errors here.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:09
Why are people surprised about the performance of mySQL versus whatever?
Generally speaking, the more features an application has, the slower it will
be. Thus, we can say that the more features a database has (seeing as how a
database platform is actually just an application), the slower it will
(well, and performance).
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Paris Lundis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Well I can't say I am
Message -
From: John Paul Ashenfelter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
| Why are people surprised about the performance of mySQL versus whatever?
| Generally speaking, the more features an application
: John Paul Ashenfelter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Why are people surprised about the performance of mySQL versus whatever?
Generally speaking, the more features an application has, the slower
Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 8:25:27 PM, John Paul Ashenfelter wrote:
snip
If you look at the methodology of the eWeek study (a link that seems
to have been removed since I first read the article), you'll find a
lot of fine print
snip
I've looked all over eWeek's site and can't find the article
Well I can't say I am enterprise.. even if I have a few tables with a
couple of million rows of data...
Checkout the MySQL site and see their consulting arm... I remember when
I first started considering MySQL, their then cleint list and
datawarehouse size was quite large.. fairly impressive
Scott Mulholland wrote:
I am researching the use of MySQL in use with enterprise level
applications, looking for feedback both good and bad.
I have read all the articles on the mySQL site, as well as the manual
and the eWeek article comparing it with Oracle.
Anyone on this list using it
Huge article in this weeks E-Week regarding the use of mySQL for all of
Rhode Island's inter/intranet sites
Cutter
Paris Lundis wrote:
Well I can't say I am enterprise.. even if I have a few tables with a
couple of million rows of data...
Checkout the MySQL site and see their consulting
it will be. It's a miracle that Oracle is
as fast as it is :)
- Original Message -
From: Cutter (CF_Talk) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Huge article in this weeks E-Week regarding the use of mySQL for
all of
Rhode
) 6213 6731
Mobile: 0439 401 823
Facsimile: (02) 6213 7287
-Original Message-
From: Cutter (CF_Talk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2003 2:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Huge article in this weeks E-Week regarding the use of mySQL
of robust SQL fancy database query stuff... The eWeek article was right
on I think about performance... having used both
fancy stuff? triggers, stored procedures, etc. and at one time these fine
fellows thought transactions were for the birds
://www.areaindex.com
http://www.pubcrawler.com
412-292-3135
[finding the future in the past, passing the future in the present]
[connecting people, places and things]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:04:24 -0700
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Why
Well, I could certainly use Oracle where I am now. In a serious way. There's no way
mySQL even comes close to what our team needs.
- Original Message -
From: Paris Lundis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, January 13, 2003 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Oh no I agree
: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise
Well, I could certainly use Oracle where I am now. In a serious way.
There's no way mySQL even comes close to what our team needs.
- Original Message -
From: Paris Lundis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, January 13, 2003 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: WOT: MySQL
35 matches
Mail list logo
