> 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
> communicativity of implication, MySQL is faster than most (if not all)
> commercial databases.
I do have to agree with Jochem here --
I would certainly sacrifice speed, regarding some issues. And
time-to-market is important as well. Remember no FKs with MySQL?
"cause you can do that in your application"... ahum.
> >>I think that your (one of) statement is not needed - InterBase seems to
> >>have been the first, with Oracle coming along later and thinking "This
> >>thing is so funky! Quick, we must build one!". At the moment though, I
> >>can only name the following 5 multiversioned engines:
> >>MySQL/InnoDB, PostgreSQL, Oracle, Firebird, Interbase
> >>Do you have any others to add?
> >ThinkSQL ( www.thinksql.co.uk ) and I believe MimerSQL as well
> >( www.mimer.com ) but I'm not sure. Then there are a lot of smaller
> >db engines that use the same technique. And of course the storage
> >engine inside www.netfrastructure.com - also created by the original
> >creator of InterBase. But it's more refined and faster - obviously, the
> >effect of modern hardware and less worries about memory etc...
> Mimer seems to have a fair bit in common with MS SQL Server.
Not really. In some ways, they're more advanced - at least, more SQL
<whateverthelatestspecis> compliant. In others, they're a bit lacking.
Visual tools, for example ;-)
> instance, one of their big features is Optimistic Conflict Control. They
> do claim "non-locking transaction control" though.
I haven't looked at it thorougly yet.
> >>Yukon definitely won't be
> >I do believe Yukon get's a snapshot transaction isolation - any word
> >on how they are going to implement this?
> In an amazingly dodgy manner? Given the amount of time they've been
> working on it, I'd say we're either going to see something entirely new
> (mutliversioning perhaps) or something "bolted on" to the old model
> that's just taking forever to implement and debug.
*g* ... still, I'm interested to see how they pulled it off ... either way,
will probably say that multi-versioning is something very new!! And that
MS has figured it out!!
(kinda like they did with, well, everything else)
> >>Admittedly, I haven't read through the licence, but the assurances you
> >>get on the licence document are a lot more comforting than the "If SQL
> >>Server 2000 shaves your cat, it's not our problem. If SQL Server 2000
> >>shaves your neighbour's cat due to you installing a device with terrible
> >>drivers, you'll pay our court costs when we get sued."
> >Don't forget the "you can use this software whereever you like except in
> >true critical areas" clauses...
> And the "You will not do compatibility testing! Documents relating to
> this are available! Make do with those!!!" clause.
Aren't licenses great... (don't check mine)
> >>>>8. MS SQL's additional tools may be of interest to you (see MS's
> >>>>page, particularly their product comparison page for the number of
> >>>>things included with SQL Server). The vast majority of this stuff
> >>>>for MySQL as well though, you will have to get your hands on it
> >>>>seperately though.
> >>>no comment.
> >>I should have really mentioned that MS SQL Server comes with a hot
> >>backup tool, an added extra for MySQL. That said, there are alternatives
> >>to MS's tool that make backups a lot more managable and scriptable.
> >I bet one of the reasons why there are sooooo many MSSQL tools is
> >that "where there's MSSQL, there's money". No offence, but from what
> >I see sometimes in open source worlds (I had this with Firebird too) is
> >I - as a tool vendor - get questions like "you create a tool for an open
> >source product and you're asking MONEY for it? tss tss"... Well, bread,
> >table and so on :-)
> Which miserable sod would question your right to charge cash for your
Oh, believe me - it happened. More than once, actually. Needless to say,
I'll just continue making tools and earning money for it...
> Nothing is stopping them from creating a free alternative and
> your contribution to the free software world in other ways is quite
> notable. The fact that you even support the big open source databases is
> an excellent push for funky software that comes with source code!!
I also know of several of these initatives saying "I can do that" and become
a total failure afterwards when they find out it's actually quite (ahum) a
of work ;-)
> >>>Obviously true. Except for the license price of MS SQL - there's
> >>>always the "how to get a discount" guide :-D
> >>For anyone reading this message, allow me to sumarise the document that
> >>Martijn has pointed out above.
> >>Have a 3 hour conversation with an MS Sales rep at your office and
> >>mention all of the following terms:
--8<-- snipped secret document part :-)
> >woohoo, darn, there goes the secret *g* ... It does work though. With
> >pretty much any company out there.
> >>I could only name a few reasons for migrating away:
> >>* Management all get labotomies over the weekend and decide to migrate
> >>to MS SQL Server. :-)
> >>* You're a total cheapskate and refuse to pay for a commercial licence
> >>and want to develop an app that links to libmysqlclient but will not be
> >>under the GPL.
> >>* You want to execute statements such as this: ALTER TABLE table ADD
> >>INDEX sum ((col1 + col2 + col3));
> >>* You want to be able to ROLLBACK DML statements
> >>* You're bored on a Saturday night and want to prove to your friend that
> >>Foxpro is a sick joke that nobody "got" when it was released.
> >I can think of a few others:
> >- stored procedures (not finished with MySQL)
> >- triggers (not even on the roadmap with MySQL?)
> >- check constraints (please, Heiki?!)
> >I'm a constraint-freak, if you like. I want my database to check the
> >data. In all sorts of possible ways...
> Triggers are slated for the 5.1 timeframe, along with FK constraints for
> all table types (including BDB?).
I did note the FKs, couldn't find the trigger though. Views: yes, I like
Let them add "domains" as well and I'd be even more happy.
> Check constraints have beem discussed in various presentations (at the
> 2003 MySQL conference, they were mentioned specifically with regard to
> MySQL's compliance to SQL92 and SQL:1999).
> The stored procedure support in MySQL looks like it will come along to a
> very complete fruition -
Yep, quite nice.
>with the ability to plug in modules that can
> execute PL/SQL and T-SQL. Once we get some form of T-SQL support (from
> some community project I would like to be a part of ), I will definitely
> work on writing a proxy program that allows you to use MySQL instead of
> MS SQL Server, just to annoy his Billness.
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL