MS SQL or MYSQL

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vincent V
  • Start date Start date
V

Vincent V

Hey guys im about to start a large project and am wondering what
DB server to use
I have the Choise of MySql(innodb) or if i pay a bit extra i can get MS SQL
2000
The concerns i have
-What type of limited functionality will i come accros with MYSQL
ie No stored POCS
-Limitations with the RDBMS system of innodb

If i go with MySQL + Innodb i think this will be offer the fastest runtime
speed
but how much more code am i going to need using MYSQL rather than MS SQL2K

Thanks for your input
 
My SQL is a great database server. However, SQL Server 2000 is definitely
better, and there are native SQL Server classes in the CLR, which enhance
performance against a SQL Server database tremendously. Not to mention the
fact that the next version of SQL Server is going to be just plain awesome.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
http://www.takempis.com
Big things are made up
of lots of little things
 
Well,

They can call it transaction, but I wouldn't.
The idea is how the data is written to the storage and how
it is later transacted, but not how the app implements it.
So, when designing DB's - the transaction should be
something started with, but not added on top of the text
file engine.
Therefore, especially for more critical apps, MySQL
shouldn't be the option.
Though, nothing personal and I'm very OK if you are using
it and it is OK for You.

Romualdas
 
nope, subqueries are not supported in the current version - current is
4.0.13 - go have another look
 
the current production release does not support subqueries, however 4.1
which should be released hopefully in the next few months will. licensing
for almost any web based app use if completely free. you only need to pay
for it if you want to redistribute it as part of your app - and then only if
you insist on keeping you app closed source. AND even if you do that it's
only 400 bucks - beats the hell out of sql server.

i would agree that it is a product on a lower scale than ms sql - for now -
but only on a feature by feature basis - speed wise - it's incredibly
impressive.
 
i would agree that it is a product on a lower scale than ms sql - for
now -
but only on a feature by feature basis - speed wise - it's incredibly
impressive.
Click to expand...

this won't be true for much longer. They just acquired SAP. They're going
after the big guns now, oracle, sql, ibm. Lets see how this thing boils over
 
Have you looked at Firebird database server?

It's open source, reliable, has an (open source) ADO.NET driver
(native CLR), offers stored procedures, triggers, declarative
referential integrity, and full Transaction support.

The code base is mature (it's an off-shoot of Interbase 6, which was
started 20 years ago, so it's more mature than SQL Server!)

It's also got a very sexy strategy for implementing transactions -
Multi Record Versioning. No locking is used (as normally understood),
instead the database maintains several copies of each record in the
table, with 'generation numbers' against them. You can only see the
record instances with lower numbers than your current transaction!

In fact it's impossible to use Firebird without transactions. I like
this approach, in other RDBMS's transactions seem 'bolted on'.

If rollback is needed, the transaction number is simply disgarded. No
active process of 'undoing' is required (no transaction log)!! It will
just leave a small amount of dead space in the datafile, which will
get claimed back next time the system garbage collects. Cool!

http://sourceforge.net/projects/firebird
http://www.firebirdsql.org/
http://www.ibphoenix.com

Pitty the websites look so bad :-(

John
 
Have you looked at Firebird database server?

It's open source, reliable, has an (open source) ADO.NET driver
(native CLR), offers stored procedures, triggers, declarative
referential integrity, and full Transaction support.

The code base is mature (it's an off-shoot of Interbase 6, which was
started 20 years ago, so it's more mature than SQL Server!)

It's also got a very sexy strategy for implementing transactions -
Multi Record Versioning. No locking is used (as normally understood),
instead the database maintains several copies of each record in the
table, with 'generation numbers' against them. You can only see the
record instances with lower numbers than your current transaction!

In fact it's impossible to use Firebird without transactions. I like
this approach, in other RDBMS's transactions seem 'bolted on'.

If rollback is needed, the transaction number is simply disgarded. No
active process of 'undoing' is required (no transaction log)!! It will
just leave a small amount of dead space in the datafile, which will
get claimed back next time the system garbage collects. Cool!

http://sourceforge.net/projects/firebird
http://www.firebirdsql.org/
http://www.ibphoenix.com

Pitty the websites look so bad :-(

John
 
something like that, thanks for the correction. should have read it again
before posting blindly.
 
Didn't SQL Server start life as a product called "DataServer" for Sun
stations, written by Sybase and released in May 1987? Then Microsoft
got in on the act, and for a couple of years it got branded with the
"dBase" label (strange but apparently true!) and sold with
Ashton-Tate.

A while later it had a "radical engine re-design" for version 6.0,
released in 1995.

So, at the oldest it's 16 years old. If the re-design really was
"radical" then it's only 8 years old...

Interbase/Firebird was commercially released in 1985. And hadn't had
any "radical" modifications. So it's 18 years old.

Not that I'm criticising MS SQL Server, use it every day, it's great.
Microsoft are very good at 'broad' products - and things like
Enterprise Manager are excellent.

But if anyone is looking for open source, and needs something less
lightweight than MySQL, I recommend Firebird.

John
 
ok first remind me to not open my mouth again over things I read on the web
somewhere and don't quite remember where...

Anyway the history of the MSSQL database :)


relational database beginnings:
http://www.mcjones.org/System_R/SQL_Reunion_95/sqlr95-Teradata.html

sybase ---> MS SQL

from:
http://www.tietovayla.fi/borland/INTERBAS/papers/sybasewp/#notes

Before the release of Microsoft SQL Server 6.0, Sybase SQL Server and
Microsoft SQL Server were the same products. Microsoft SQL Server 4 was
licensed from Sybase and resold under the Microsoft label. In 1995,
Microsoft purchased the code base from Sybase and modified it to produce
Microsoft SQL Server 6.0. Sybase continued development of its SQL Server
product and now markets them under the name Sybase SQL Server System 10 and
System 11. At the heart of both Microsoft SQL Server and the Sybase SQL
Server products lies the same code base. In most cases, the products behave
in the same fashion. For that reason, the term "SQL Server" shall, for the
purpose of this paper, refer to both Microsoft SQL Server and Sybase SQL
Server. Where these two products differ, their respective product names are
used.

-----------------
from 1992 and up:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/anniversary/timeline.asp


John Sparrow said:
Didn't SQL Server start life as a product called "DataServer" for Sun
stations, written by Sybase and released in May 1987? Then Microsoft
got in on the act, and for a couple of years it got branded with the
"dBase" label (strange but apparently true!) and sold with
Ashton-Tate.

A while later it had a "radical engine re-design" for version 6.0,
released in 1995.

So, at the oldest it's 16 years old. If the re-design really was
"radical" then it's only 8 years old...

Interbase/Firebird was commercially released in 1985. And hadn't had
any "radical" modifications. So it's 18 years old.

Not that I'm criticising MS SQL Server, use it every day, it's great.
Microsoft are very good at 'broad' products - and things like
Enterprise Manager are excellent.

But if anyone is looking for open source, and needs something less
lightweight than MySQL, I recommend Firebird.

John



where do you think MSSQL has its roots then :)
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
 
LOL, that artical is a good deal more cynical about SQL Server that
the one I read!!

Anyway, point made. SQL Server isn't especially aged, and has
undergone at least one major rewrite.

John
 
Back
Top