Are you wanting to move Foreign keys, Triggers, Stored procedures and the
like as well or just the data?
-Original Message-
From: Tim Winters
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8/24/04 10:36 AM
Subject: sql2000 to mysql
Hello,
Can someone advise me of the best/easiest way to move an entire DB
Victor Pendleton wrote:
Are you wanting to move Foreign keys, Triggers, Stored procedures and the
like as well or just the data?
definitely!!
so you make relations in your codes for projects...
If not use Triggers, not use Stored procedures then, You move database,
table and data with a small
Hi Victor,
Just Tables and Data.
Ideally scripted to create the tables and insert the data. will sql2000
product something similer to a .sql file which can simple be run as a script?
Thx
At 12:45 PM 24/08/2004, Victor Pendleton wrote:
Are you wanting to move Foreign keys, Triggers, Stored
You can try SQLyog's ODBC Import feature. SQLyog can
be found at http://www.webyog.com
Regards
Karam
--- Tim Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Victor,
Just Tables and Data.
Ideally scripted to create the tables and insert the
data. will sql2000
product something similer to a .sql
If you have DTS you can export the data to a CSV format. If you have MyODBC
installed you could export directly to MySQL.
-Original Message-
From: Tim Winters
To: Victor Pendleton; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Sent: 8/24/04 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: sql2000 to mysql
Hi Victor,
Just Tables and Data
Hi Peter,
* Assuming that my points below regarding performance are correct (I'm
sure that Heikki will stand by InnoDB and back up anyone preaching
it's
performance benefits), the lower hardware costs are an important
factor
(as in lower for a given performance target).
Note: when
Chris Nolan wrote:
Martijn Tonies wrote:
Additionally, it is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than the
mighty, mighty PostgreSQL.
No, it is not. It is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than
PostgreSQL for certain tasks.
The PostgreSQL developers say that they are faster
than most
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
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 22:29, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Chris Nolan wrote:
Martijn Tonies wrote:
Additionally, it is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than the
mighty, mighty PostgreSQL.
No, it is not. It is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than
PostgreSQL for certain tasks.
On Feb 10, 2004, at 9:12 AM, Chris Nolan wrote:
12. MySQL AB weren't responsible for afflicting the world with the Jet
database engine (Access) or Visual FoxPro, thus they are more
trustworthy than MS! :-)
Microsoft *bought* FoxPro; they didn't develop the database engine.
FWIW, it is one of
Yes, we all know that Microsoft *bought* FoxPro's underlaying
technology, that is *FoxBASE*! Everything ever called FoxPro has been a
Microsoft product.
Agreed that FoxPro's xBase implementation is quite quick, but the fact
that it's pushed as a high-performance multi-user engine is a bit of
On Feb 11, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Chris Nolan wrote:
Yes, we all know that Microsoft *bought* FoxPro's underlaying
technology, that is *FoxBASE*! Everything ever called FoxPro has been
a Microsoft product.
Sorry, you're off by a few years. FoxPro had been out for several
years before Microsoft
Ed Leafe wrote:
On Feb 11, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Chris Nolan wrote:
Yes, we all know that Microsoft *bought* FoxPro's underlaying
technology, that is *FoxBASE*! Everything ever called FoxPro has been
a Microsoft product.
Sorry, you're off by a few years. FoxPro had been out for several
On Feb 11, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Chris Nolan wrote:
Done intelligently, though, a Visual FoxPro app that uses VFP for
the GUI and business logic, and which uses MySQL as the back end, is
an incredibly powerful combination. I haven't done VFP development
that uses Xbase-type tables in years.
Hmmfor practical purposes:
1. MySQL is going to cost you a lot less, no matter which way you do things.
2. MySQL is going to perform better for the vast majority of workloads.
The only place where MS SQL Server *might* have an advantage is in
situations where it's additional language
Hi Chris,
I understand that you like MySQL but ...
Hmmfor practical purposes:
1. MySQL is going to cost you a lot less, no matter which way you do
things.
This is a pretty bold statement. Can you back this argument with
some references regarding TCO and development time for a particular
Hi Chris,
It seems that whenever we both comment in a thread, you enlighten me
greatly!
;-) ... I'm learning more about MySQL with every post. Ok, maybe
not every post, but still ... *g*
I tend to be a critic sometimes, but I'm a really nice guy. Believe me on
this one ;-)
1. MySQL is going
On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 08:38, Martijn Tonies wrote:
* Assuming that my points below regarding performance are correct (I'm
sure that Heikki will stand by InnoDB and back up anyone preaching it's
performance benefits), the lower hardware costs are an important factor
(as in lower for a
Martijn Tonies wrote:
Hi Chris,
It seems that whenever we both comment in a thread, you enlighten me
greatly!
;-) ... I'm learning more about MySQL with every post. Ok, maybe
not every post, but still ... *g*
I tend to be a critic sometimes, but I'm a really nice guy. Believe me on
this
Hi,
Does somebody can explain the technical difference beetwen SQL2000 and
MySQL
In exactly what area?
In short: MS SQL 2000 is more advanced, has more build in stuff,
is more expensive, most probably has more security leaks :-)
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer
] wrote: -
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 02/09/2004 12:16PM
Subject: Re: SQL2000 and MySql
Hi,
Does somebody can explain the technical difference beetwen SQL2000 and
MySQL
In exactly what area?
In short: MS SQL 2000 is more advanced, has more build in stuff
Hi,
I have a software of insurance to do quotations directly on the web. It
uses
a SQL 2000 database and I want to use MYSQL database. Do you think it is
possible ?
That depends on the requirements, doesn't it.
What do you use in your MS SQL 2000 database?
For example, MySQL doesn't have
22 matches
Mail list logo
