Posted on 09/28/2010 5:04:24 PM PDT by WebFocus
Oracle is only run on the Solaris servers. MYSQL on both.
So, how do you compare MYSQL running on Windows compared to SQL Server? ( What versions of MYSQL and SQL Server are you guys using anyway?)
I believe the article is showing an increased market share for SQL Server because it has been designed and dedicated to the Windows platform.
Like it or not, Windows has over 90% of the OS market worldwide and Microsoft’s dominance in this area will simply ensure that any product they develop, be it Database Servers or Web servers or browsers will be OPTIMIZED for the Windows platform ( whatever version they’re coming up with ).
SQL2005 still annoyed me, especially the full-text indexing as a separate process, very kludgy. SQL2008 is pretty sweet though, I love working with it.
We are running MYSQL 5.5 using myphpadmin to build database on UNIX and MySQL admin to build databases on Windows.
We use these two databases to keep it simple and consistent. The web engineers know there databases well. We have over 100 web sites to keep running.
I generally use one these days, MSSQL. I’ve found over the years that what’s far more important for performance than the database engine or even the hardware you use is the design of the database and how it’s used by the application. I’ve achieved literally 100x+ performance improvements combined with 90% drops in server load by changing even small parts in the structure and access of databases created by others. They thought SQL Server or the hardware was just slow, but it was the design that was at fault. Why throw $50,000 more at hardware and SQL licenses when a few days of intelligent analysis and redesign will fix it?
Once upon a time I acheived a factor of 30 speedup in a kernel for a computational routine at work by re-arranging and re-writing it to eliminate algebraic redundancies.
Cheers!
Once upon a time I achieved a factor of 30 speedup in a kernel for a computational routine at work by re-arranging and re-writing it to eliminate algebraic redundancies.
Cheers!
It would spur otherwise unnecessary purchases of Windows licenses.
But these days, I find no reason to go beyond SQLite, in those cases where I even need a RDBMS. There is no reason to pay for the licenses you need to run MSSQL, much less Oracle. Google doesn't do it, so why should I?
There is if you have data requirements too big for SQLite. It is "lite" after all. It can't really handle highly transactional or large datasets.
Google doesn't do it, so why should I?
Oracle uses a custom, distributed, non-relational database system called BigTable that has a multi-tiered lookup architecture and is designed to work on top of Google's custom file system. It's designed for fast lookup within petabytes of data across thousands of servers. It's also not for sale.
Why did I write Oracle? BigTable is of course Google.
I know BigTable isn't relational. As for MySQL, it has definitely come a long way. It couldn't even do transactions, stored procedures or referential integrity when I started using it. There are still limitations to MySQL. For example, for work use I don't want an RDBMS where pulling the plug on the server can cause data corruption. MSSQL and Oracle can recover from such a situation just fine, MySQL not so much.
But as always, horses for courses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.