[Core]

I've been using MySQL for a while and I've recently started using MS SQL. Can't say about other platforms, but since I am using only Windows, I don't think that MySQL being discontinued will be a big loss for me personally, since I really like the way MS SQL works (even the Express edition).

I believe, though, that even if MySQL will be closed (as a project - there will still be people using it all over the world), that is still not likely to happen anytime soon, Oracle will most likely come up with a free edition of their RDBMS. They probably don't want to lose thousands of clients with a single click.

[Tom9729]

NeoTifa, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 01:05 PM, said:

But wouldn't that screw a lot of programs and websites and stuff up? A lot of people use it. My knowledge of databases is probably skewed, but in like Java isn't there seperate packages for SQL vs. MySQL?

[/n00b]

There's an SQL package. You can use it with different drivers for different databases.

KeyboardKowboy, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 06:56 AM, said:

I am a huge fan of MySQL, and personally loathe MS SQL,

PsychoCoder, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 01:08 PM, said:

Other than the fact that it's not free why would you loathe it? It is much more powerful than MySQL and so much more can be done with it than can be done with MySQL.

Please don't turn this into a Microsoft vs everyone else thing. KeyboardKowboy, why do you loathe MS SQL? PsychoCoder, please explain in what ways it is more powerful than MySQL.

This post has been edited by Tom9729: 28 October 2009 - 11:33 AM

[KeyboardKowboy]

PsychoCoder, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 12:08 PM, said:

Other than the fact that it's not free why would you loathe it? It is much more powerful than MySQL and so much more can be done with it than can be done with MySQL.

Just wondering?

When comparing MySQL to MS SQL, I believe less is more. To begin with, I find the installation much more straightforward with MySQL Server. It's as simple as choosing whether to run as a system service or not, what port to run on, the default database type (ISAM, InnoDB, etc.), and setting a root password... Done.

Since the inception of MySQL 5.0+, stored procedures and triggers are now available. I find the MySQL Administrator system much less cluttered than SQL Server Management Studio. It makes more sense, it's laid out better, and runs faster. MySQL Administrator is also accompanied by Query Browser and Workbench... all the bases are covered. Management Studio is extremely top heavy... and I find most common procedures/functions to be buried, nothing is where you would expect it to be unless you've had to dig into it before.

When developing software, I find the MySQL libraries just as full fledged as the built in Microsoft SQL libraries. I've had issues in the past with restoring MSSQL backups... never an issue with MySQL. I also find the connection strings annoying. Connecting to a MySQL database requires a simple socket connection (IP:Port). I have never been able to connect to an MSSQL database using anything other than named pipes. I've spent hours and hours digging through the windows registry and Management Studio trying to find every little place to turn TCP Connections on... still doesn't work. And what's with all that 'dbo' stuff? There's just far too much unnecessary clutter for me... although it should be expected being a Microsoft product.

I typically use MySQL Community Edition, which is the completely free MySQL product. I understand MS SQL Server Express exists, but it only utilizes 1gig of system memory versus 4gig that MySQL utilizes. MS SQL Express also limits your databases to 4gig in size... and is it just me or are MS SQL databases gigantuan in size as compared to a MySQL database (assuming similar datasets). Also, if an Enterprise system is required (Replication, etc.), I'd much rather shell out around $700 for MySQL Enterprise than upwards of $10k for MS SQL.

I guess I don't know what MySQL can't do that MS SQL can. Well, aside from giving you constant migraines, an empty wallet, and a cluttered maintenance and development life cycle. Oh, and MSSQL allows windows authentication (yippee). I guess I'll shoot the same question back to you... how is MS SQL so much more powerful than MySQL... and at what cost?!

As you can tell... I use MySQL whenever possible. I've had a better experience using, maintaining, and developing against MySQL Server.

[tivrfoa]

PsychoCoder, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

It is much more powerful than MySQL and so much more can be done with it than can be done with MySQL.

Just wondering?

You could list these differences. It would help a lot of people. Maybe a tutorial. =)

[baavgai]

Hmm... I feel the need to assert my DBAness.

IMHO: MS SQL Express < MySql < MS SQL Server < Oracle

MS SQL Express is a developer's tool. It's primary advantage is the ability to behave like it's big brother in almost all respects. However, it's not meant for a production solution, by design.

MySql is comes from humble beginnings. It has excelled as a general purpose data store and back end for any number of applications. It leverages the speed of file IO and can be faster than other options for raw IO. I preferred it when it had less frills and didn't pretend to be a more enterprise solution. It's default engine is still pretty brain dead, but if your logic is in the application layer that's not an issue.

MS SQL Server is a true enterprise solution. In all but the most demanding applications it is more the adequate. It's tool set is exceptional. This is by far the easiest database to maintain, backup, and restore that I've ever worked with. The only real con is it's OScentric nature. It works best on a dedicated Windows box and will use every drop of resource given a chance.

Oracle is the really big RDBMS. It can handle massive amounts of transactions and storage, measuring in petabytes and running on mainframes. Things that would crush MS SQL. However, this level of demand is uncommon for most applications. Also, it is a venerable and horribly complex beast. You need to hire a full time employee ( like myself ) just to maintain some installations. It's also significantly more expensive than MS SQL.

It's worth noting that while MySql gets all the open source notice there are other options. This mostly because MySql was an ideal choice for the LAMP stack. However, other databases like PostgreSQL or Ingres can be more suitable as a MS SQL replacement.

SQLite. For smaller MS SQL Express style applications, SQLite is a good choice. While actually much simpler than MS SQL Express, it is ideal for a basic web application datastore. Often you see MySql used where something like SQLite would be more than enough.

[coden4fun]

baavgai, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 05:15 PM, said:

Hmm... I feel the need to assert my DBAness.

IMHO: MS SQL Express < MySql < MS SQL Server < Oracle

MS SQL Express is a developer's tool. It's primary advantage is the ability to behave like it's big brother in almost all respects. However, it's not meant for a production solution, by design.

MySql is comes from humble beginnings. It has excelled as a general purpose data store and back end for any number of applications. It leverages the speed of file IO and can be faster than other options for raw IO. I preferred it when it had less frills and didn't pretend to be a more enterprise solution. It's default engine is still pretty brain dead, but if your logic is in the application layer that's not an issue.

MS SQL Server is a true enterprise solution. In all but the most demanding applications it is more the adequate. It's tool set is exceptional. This is by far the easiest database to maintain, backup, and restore that I've ever worked with. The only real con is it's OScentric nature. It works best on a dedicated Windows box and will use every drop of resource given a chance.

Oracle is the really big RDBMS. It can handle massive amounts of transactions and storage, measuring in petabytes and running on mainframes. Things that would crush MS SQL. However, this level of demand is uncommon for most applications. Also, it is a venerable and horribly complex beast. You need to hire a full time employee ( like myself ) just to maintain some installations. It's also significantly more expensive than MS SQL.

It's worth noting that while MySql gets all the open source notice there are other options. This mostly because MySql was an ideal choice for the LAMP stack. However, other databases like PostgreSQL or Ingres can be more suitable as a MS SQL replacement.

SQLite. For smaller MS SQL Express style applications, SQLite is a good choice. While actually much simpler than MS SQL Express, it is ideal for a basic web application datastore. Often you see MySql used where something like SQLite would be more than enough.

You're a SQL God I salute you. I'm actually using MS SQL Server myself for a hospital website for the company I work for is putting together. I hope it comes along quite nicely.

This post has been edited by coden4fun: 28 October 2009 - 06:55 PM

[Amadeus]

This another area in which I feel folks should use what they feel is the best solution for them, unless the sheer volumes/transactions dictate a solution.

Frankly, there will always be people who prefer the MS solutions, simply because they are from MS, and just as many who prefer them because the MS solutions meet their needs as the best option. On the flip side, there are folks who will avoid MS solutions solely because they are from MS, regardless of whether it is the best solution.

I work in the large enterprise space...most of our DBs are of the MS SQL server variety, and that solution works. As noted by Baavgai, the tool set for SQL Server is fantastic, making it the obvious choice for many Enterprise solutions. For two specific areas, Oracle is required as the sheer number of transactions and volume of data could not be handled by SQL Server.

For most personal and small business sites I've done, I've used MySQL or SQLite - in these cases, SQL Server would simply be overkill.

If MySQL leaves us with no forwarding address, I'd likely switch to PostgreSQL for most things, unless I needed SQL Server for something larger. I'm fairly confident I won;t have any personal projects that require Oracle

Remember, freedom means choice, not OSS vs. MS. Use what best suits your needs (and that includes your preferences)

[KeyboardKowboy]

baavgai, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 07:15 PM, said:

It's default engine is still pretty brain dead, but if your logic is in the application layer that's not an issue.

Baavgai, in all of your 'DBAness' (I like that by the way)... could you expound on the quoted statement above please? As I had mentioned, since MySQL 5.0 arrived we now have stored procedures and triggers, etc. A lot of times I prefer to handle certain logic in the application layer, but I have also definitely utilized the logic control structures within the DBMS itself.

I am not defending MySQL vs. MS SQL vs. Blah... I'm simply wondering how you came to that conclusion. Thanks.

[gabehabe]

PsychoCoder, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 05:08 PM, said:

Other than the fact that it's not free why would you loathe it? It is much more powerful than MySQL and so much more can be done with it than can be done with MySQL.

Such as? I know you're a microsoft fan boy ()and all, but I've never really come across anything I wanted to achieve via a database that I couldn't do with MySQL.

MS SQL, as with all other microsoft products, is bloated. It's full of features I'll never need nor want.

I'd much rather use a free system that works fine, than pay for features I'll never use.

This post has been edited by gabehabe: 29 October 2009 - 06:45 AM

[RudiVisser]

gabehabe, on 29 Oct, 2009 - 12:37 PM, said:

Such as? I know you're a microsoft fan boy and all, but I've never really come across anything I wanted to achieve via a database that I couldn't do with MySQL.

MS SQL, as with all other microsoft products, is bloated. It's full of features I'll never need nor want.

I'd much rather use a free system that works fine, than pay for features I'll never use.

Fixed.. Have you ever worked on a large-scale/enterprise application??

EDIT: Personally, I believe MSSQL to be more suited, as mentioned above, to large scale applications (either web or software). It's management tools seriously surpass MySQL's.

Also, if I want to use MSSQL in a Commercially Distributed Application... I don't have to pay Microsoft $895 just for their ADO.NET connector...

This post has been edited by RudiVisser: 29 October 2009 - 06:51 AM

[baavgai]

KeyboardKowboy, on 29 Oct, 2009 - 06:57 AM, said:

baavgai, on 28 Oct, 2009 - 07:15 PM, said:

It's default engine is still pretty brain dead, but if your logic is in the application layer that's not an issue.

Baavgai, in all of your 'DBAness' (I like that by the way)... could you expound on the quoted statement above please?

Fair enough:

Quote

MyISAM is the default storage engine. It is based on the older ISAM - http://dev.mysql.com...age-engine.html

Lack of features include: No Foreign key support, No Transactions, Only Table Locking.

No built in data integrity should be a deal breaker for any competent DBA. Lack of transactions makes it functionally useless for many applications.

InnoDB is the only real choice for anything serious. Unfortunately, you used to take a performance hit for using it. I believe that's getting better.

[girasquid]

Baavgai, what are your thoughts on Postgresql? It's the database engine of choice in my circles over MySQL, but I'd be interested in hearing some thoughts from a DBA on the two(or even how Postgresql compares to the other systems mentioned).

[baavgai]

I honestly haven't used Postgresql enough to give an informed personal opinion. However, in terms of feature set, it beats MySql soundly and offers a reasonable alternative to costly enterprise solutions.

I became aware of it years ago when a buddy of mine in Silicon Valley told me his company was moving from Oracle to PostgreSQL! I was incredulous, but he assured me it had the most features of any open source solution to meet their needs. They'd been running a test cluster for a while with no complaints. Since I never heard any aftermath horror stories, I assume everything went well.

Personally, I find the trend toward kitchen sink databases underwhelming. Object support, loading funky external languages into the engine, modeling abstract data types or XML, etc. A database has the job of storing and retrieving data as quickly and reliably as possible. Many of the bells and whistles interfere with that. Worse, most of the time they're not even used. When MySql started using stored procedures I was actually disappointed.

If you should find yourself installing a commercial database; always look at the features. If you're not using something like full text searches of clobs or global coordinate spacial data, turn those things off!

[KeyboardKowboy]

Quote

Baavgai: Lack of features include: No Foreign key support, No Transactions, Only Table Locking.

No foreign key support? I use foreign key constraints all the time... or is that only when using MyISAM?
I have only really ever used InnoDB... which in all of my experiences is the default storage engine.
Perhaps it wasn't at some point... but I'm fairly certain it is now...

As far as transactions go... MySQL did not support them for a loooong time... but they do now. InnoDB transactions do in fact exist, and MySQL is now considered ACID compliant (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability).

Quote

Gabehabe: MS SQL, as with all other microsoft products, is bloated. It's full of features I'll never need nor want.

Gabehabe... I concur!

[baavgai]

KeyboardKowboy, on 29 Oct, 2009 - 01:08 PM, said:

No foreign key support? I use foreign key constraints all the time... or is that only when using MyISAM?
I have only really ever used InnoDB... which in all of my experiences is the default storage engine.

Follow the link, read the quote. MyISAM is the default engine.

A curious quirk is that MySql will let you define foreign keys even in the MyISAM engine; it just ignores them.