Hmm....for 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 features are able to do things
that you would need to do in your application should you use MySQL (and
comparisons in this area in the past by many people have still shown
MySQL to have a speed edge).
3. MySQL's "primary" (BDB fans, please don't flame me) transactional
table type is the fastest transactional storage engine on the planet,
has an option for proper binary backups and has very quick and automatic
recovery, regardless of how ugly a crash is. MS SQL's "old-style"
non-multiversioned system can be problematic in this regard in some rare
cases.
4. ALTER TABLE statements in both products (currently at least) will
result in a SHARED LOCK being placed on the table in question. Yukon
(SQL Server 2003) will remove this limitation though.
5. MySQL has one of the most active communities of any database product.
Getting help isn't a problem on this mailing list - it's more a question
of getting people to stop giving you help.
6. MySQL's commercial licence is quite nice for businesses as there are
written assurances regarding the software's capabilities.
7. BIG ARGUMENT: MySQL is multi-platform and quite platform agnostic.
Migrating between architectures and/or operating systems is a non-issue.
With SQL Server, you're stuck with either of the pathetic excuses for
server OSes, Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2003 Server.
8. MS SQL's additional tools may be of interest to you (see MS's product
page, particularly their product comparison page for the number of nice
things included with SQL Server). The vast majority of this stuff exists
for MySQL as well though, you will have to get your hands on it
seperately though.
9. The general opinion in industry is that MS SQL Server's replication
capabilities are not ready for prime-time. MySQL's replication
capabilities are very solid.
10. With MySQL, it's easy to get support for it from the people who
actually wrote it. If there's a feature that you desperately need and
you're willing to pay for it (and paying for it equates to about the
same as buying a decent MS SQL Server setup), they may very well be able
to help you out!
11. If you change your mind later, migrating from MySQL to another
database engine is a well-travelled path with utilities and full-blown
product offers all over the place.
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! :-)
13. You'll have my eternal gratitude if you use MySQL over MS SQL
Server...I'll send you a postcard.
Regards,
Chris
Martijn Tonies wrote:
>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 triggers and stored procedures.
>
>(please reply to the MySQL list only, not to me personally)
>
>With regards,
>
>Martijn Tonies
>Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
>Server.
>Upscene Productions
>http://www.upscene.com
>
>
>
>
>>>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 :-)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
