You cannot be serious.

Post #367,321 by mmoffitt 12/5/12 2:36:00 PM Reply	You cannot be serious. MS Sql Server is a very good workgroup level database - if you don't want to pay a real DBA to get maximal performance from your DB and you don't have > 1TB or so of data. But it has light years to go before its in Oracle's class. MS Sql Server is as good as MySql? Sure. But then so is your grandma's little case with her recipe cards in it.
Post #367,324 by folkert 12/5/12 3:02:05 PM Reply	MySQL is better than MSSQL.. in most areas. Its got far better storage engines that can be selected per table (MS-SQL do this???), far more external features than MS-SQL. Handles Multi-terabytes of data easily and consistently, has built-in replication features you have to pay for in MS-SQL. Has the ability to use external files as a part of the DB seamlessly. Data partitions work amazingly well. Plus I can backup the whole DB using common tools that make restores just about as easy. Clustering (multiple technologies for it). There are many external add-ons that are free and work amazingly well with MySQL. You have to pay BIG BUCKS for the MS-SQL versions of theses because they are ADD-ONS to MS-SQL. MS-SQL for multi-processors and gaggles of memory ... additional fees. Clustering... ouch. High Availability as a product $$$$. No, MS-SQL is a biatch and it doesn't work well with others. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #367,331 by mmoffitt 12/5/12 3:49:35 PM Reply	Okay, maybe that was a little unfair and ... demonstrating my bias for PostgreSQL. But let's NOT start another battle in the endless MySql vs. PostgreSQL war and just agree that both are better than MS-SQL. Okay? :0)
Post #367,339 by folkert 12/5/12 4:31:08 PM Reply	No Problem there... Postgres is still IMO, a better DB technically and on certain scales is fantastically better. But lacks in many "experimental" or edge case usage. MySQL has more "features" I need/use/want/like. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #367,341 by lincoln 12/5/12 4:52:55 PM Reply	Re: MySQL is better than MSSQL.. Again, I donÂt want to mislead you into thinking MySQL has more features than SQL Server because the truth is it doesnÂt. But the features and capabilities MySQL does possess is usually more than enough to handle systems that need a strong OLTP or analytical database. But also understand that, although both SQL Server and MySQL have complementary features in many areas, there are sections where the depth of what SQL Server offers is better than MySQL. For example, both MySQL and SQL Server have GIS features, but SQL ServerÂs is more robust than MySQLÂs. Ditto when it comes to their job scheduler vs. ours. But conversely, there are cases when MySQL rises above SQL Server in some ways, such as partitioning Â SQL Server does have parallel support for partitioning, but MySQL provides more options for various types of partitioning: MySQL offers range, hash, key, list, and composite partitioning whereas SQL Server only offers range. And continuing with the example of partitioning, I find MySQLÂs partitioning much easier to use as itÂs defined right with the table via DDL during creation time vs. creating partitioning objects in SQL Server (partition schemes and functions) that are then applied to tables. Of course, there are features in SQL Server MySQL has no complement for. Security is one particular area where MySQL trails Microsoft Â unlike SQL Server, MySQL has no concept of roles or external authentication, and its data auditing abilities are quite weak compared to Microsoft. I could list many more features that SQL Server has over MySQL (e.g. better query optimizations and methods, transparent data encryption, etc.), but as I said earlier, MySQL isnÂt about going all out with Microsoft or anyone else in the features arena. From the sidebar: Robin Schumacher is MySQL's Director of Product Management and has over 13 years of database experience in DB2, MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server and other database engines. http://dev.mysql.com...t_SQL_Server.html "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #367,351 by folkert 12/5/12 8:40:37 PM Reply	CORE ONLY MySQL vs MS-SQL Complete. That is the catch there. I use it daily for Enterprise usage and class of service. For comparison, our product competes directly in TPS with MS-SQL products. We have 10% the hardware requirements and about 1% the Software cost on the server-side. Yeah... MS-SQL works great on Windows. That brings along the costs of the Windows Licenses and the enhanced Hardware requirements. FYI, former customers that have switched to competitors have to spend $100K per server (up to 5 needed for number of operators) to get the TPS we have using our hosted services. All I can say is that one former customer in particular has drank the MS Kool Aid has spent well of $500K on just the server side hardware to get the performance they got with our stuff. Not to mention they've had to upgrade ALL computers that were running WindowsXP and Windows98. They had VERY few Windows Vista or Windows 7 machines. Oh and new versions of Office were required... plus they had to purchase the MS-SQL licenses and many other pieces parets MS doesn't include. Sorry. That article you posted... I don't think you read it completely. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #367,356 by scoenye 12/5/12 10:13:14 PM Reply	Shirley you mean MariaDB? >:-)
Post #367,371 by folkert 12/6/12 8:15:38 AM Reply	Re: Shirley you mean MariaDB? >:-) Not at the current moment. Though the gauntlet has been thrown by Oracle for us to change it out. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C

Welcome to IWETHEY!