Ian O'Rourke wrote:
>I've been playing with MySQL for a bit now (and it is playing) and I'm using
>it for a number of personal sites (ie not many users, and only I really post
>stuff). I've also adopted it at work, and we use it to dump Lotus Domino
>information into for more structured reporting. All is good.
>
>In the near future we face making a decision for a database backend, and the
>logical choice for us is MSSQL as we have one server already for Great
>Plains - but it would seem MySQL is much cheaper. This would be a line of
>business we application for around 200 people.
>
>Obviously, the details are vague here, I was just wondering if anyone had
>any stories, personal ones, rather than the press announcements, of adopting
>MySQL for line of business, critical stuff - what it involved, how it went,
>what issues they faced in getting it accepted and so on.
>
>I'm genuinly interested.
>
>
We have most of our data in MySQL now.
Our main database has about 20 tables, the biggest one being 500,000
rows of telecommunications data. This database has about 30 concurrent
users, all connecting via MS Access 2002. Access puts considerable load
on databases, even with a small number of users. Actually the reason I
got MySQL in the door to start with was because SQL Server was starting
to barf on some tables that a lot of users had open at once. MySQL ( and
InnoDB in particular ) handles Access quite well.
Our sales database has 4 people connecting via Access, and 3 people
connecting through the web server.
We have a number of other special-purpose databases for importing
customer's data that regularly get 1,000,000 rows of data dumped in them.
I've been slowly migrating our existing SQL Server database to MySQL,
and am basically waiting on stored procedure support before I move our
billing data ( we have some pretty complicated queries which use views &
stored procedures to calculate billing info, which I _could_ do in
MySQL, but would rather not until I have stored procedures ).
Our migration has gone without a hitch at all. The performance seems to
be about twice that of SQL Server 7's, and more so in some cases where
the query cache makes it up to 10x faster.
We are also running our web site: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au (
simple but effective ) off the same server - it's a LAMP server.
Anyway, I'd say go for it, but use the production version. I say this
not because the 4.1.x line is unstable, but because if something _does_
go wrong, you don't want to get caught out using an officially unstable
version.
Dan
