List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Chris Nolan Date:February 10 2004 2:12pm
Subject:Re: SQL2000 and MySql
View as plain text  
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 :-)
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


Thread
SQL2000 and MySqlAubais309 Feb
  • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlMartijn Tonies9 Feb
Re: SQL2000 and MySqlPeter J Milanese9 Feb
Re: SQL2000 and MySqlMartijn Tonies9 Feb
  • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlChris Nolan10 Feb
    • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlEd Leafe11 Feb
      • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlChris Nolan12 Feb
        • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlEd Leafe12 Feb
          • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlChris Nolan12 Feb
            • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlEd Leafe12 Feb
Re: SQL2000 and MySqlMartijn Tonies10 Feb
  • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlChris Nolan10 Feb
Re: SQL2000 and MySqlMartijn Tonies10 Feb
  • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlPeter Zaitsev10 Feb
  • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlChris Nolan11 Feb
    • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlJochem van Dieten11 Feb
      • Re: SQL2000 and MySqlChris Nolan11 Feb
Re: SQL2000 and MySqlMartijn Tonies11 Feb
Re: SQL2000 and MySqlMartijn Tonies11 Feb