MS SQL or MYSQL

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Vincent V, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. Vincent V

    Vincent V Guest

    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
    Vincent V, Jul 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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

    "Vincent V" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    >
    Kevin Spencer, Jul 10, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Vincent V

    Mamcx Guest

    Mamcx, Jul 10, 2003
    #3
  4. Vincent V

    Romualdas Guest

    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

    >-----Original Message-----
    >In the MySql page

    http://www.mysql.com/products/mysql/index.html
    >say other things:
    >In short say that all this is supported in the *current*

    version...
    >
    >> 1. View
    >> 2. Foreign key
    >> 3. Sub Query
    >> 4. Transaction
    Romualdas, Jul 11, 2003
    #4
  5. Vincent V

    Guest Guest

    nope, subqueries are not supported in the current version - current is
    4.0.13 - go have another look


    "Mamcx" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In the MySql page http://www.mysql.com/products/mysql/index.html
    > say other things:
    >
    > In short say that all this is supported in the *current* version...
    >
    > > 1. View
    > > 2. Foreign key
    > > 3. Sub Query
    > > 4. Transaction

    >
    >
    Guest, Jul 13, 2003
    #5
  6. Vincent V

    Guest Guest

    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.


    "joe" <contact_by_Newsgroup_only.please> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > I could be wrong but I believe the latest version of MySQL includes

    support
    > for subqueries. However I note that contrary to what has been said

    elsewhere
    > it is not free. The licensing for all but a very narrow use is

    significant.
    >
    > It seems to be a product aimed at the market between MS SQL and MSDE.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    > > I built my application using MSSQL, as it was what I was accustomed to
    > > using. However, with the licensing fees being what they are - when my

    app
    > > outgrew shared hosting and I had to go dedicated, I decided to switch to
    > > MySQL. I've been really happy with that choice.
    > >
    > > MySQL definately has some limitations - no stored procs - and worse, no
    > > subqueries. The lack of stored procs isn't that big a loss IMO as MySQL

    > has
    > > proven to be quicker than SQL Server in my application - and whilst

    speed
    > > may not be the only reason to use SPs, it's certainly one of the bigger
    > > ones.
    > >
    > > the loss of subqueries has hurt - not so much in the application

    itself -
    > > but in maintenance jobs that i need to run. Now I have to run these

    > queries
    > > in code so I can use the results of one query in the next. It was a bit

    > of
    > > a hassle. Also, MySQL is much much easier on RAM than SQL Server.
    > >
    > > Basically, if you go for MySQL you're trading off a bit of convenience

    and
    > > ease of development for much lower costs and in my opinion, slightly

    > greater
    > > speed.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Vincent V" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > 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
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Guest, Jul 13, 2003
    #6
  7. Vincent V

    Alvin Bruney Guest

    > 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.


    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

    >
    >
    > "joe" <contact_by_Newsgroup_only.please> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    > > I could be wrong but I believe the latest version of MySQL includes

    > support
    > > for subqueries. However I note that contrary to what has been said

    > elsewhere
    > > it is not free. The licensing for all but a very narrow use is

    > significant.
    > >
    > > It seems to be a product aimed at the market between MS SQL and MSDE.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:%...
    > > > I built my application using MSSQL, as it was what I was accustomed to
    > > > using. However, with the licensing fees being what they are - when my

    > app
    > > > outgrew shared hosting and I had to go dedicated, I decided to switch

    to
    > > > MySQL. I've been really happy with that choice.
    > > >
    > > > MySQL definately has some limitations - no stored procs - and worse,

    no
    > > > subqueries. The lack of stored procs isn't that big a loss IMO as

    MySQL
    > > has
    > > > proven to be quicker than SQL Server in my application - and whilst

    > speed
    > > > may not be the only reason to use SPs, it's certainly one of the

    bigger
    > > > ones.
    > > >
    > > > the loss of subqueries has hurt - not so much in the application

    > itself -
    > > > but in maintenance jobs that i need to run. Now I have to run these

    > > queries
    > > > in code so I can use the results of one query in the next. It was a

    bit
    > > of
    > > > a hassle. Also, MySQL is much much easier on RAM than SQL Server.
    > > >
    > > > Basically, if you go for MySQL you're trading off a bit of convenience

    > and
    > > > ease of development for much lower costs and in my opinion, slightly

    > > greater
    > > > speed.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Vincent V" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > 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
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Alvin Bruney, Jul 13, 2003
    #7
  8. who acquired SAP?
    My understanding is that MySQL agreed to partner with SAP.


    "Alvin Bruney" <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:...
    > > 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.

    >
    > 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
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > "joe" <contact_by_Newsgroup_only.please> wrote in message
    > > news:%...
    > > > I could be wrong but I believe the latest version of MySQL includes

    > > support
    > > > for subqueries. However I note that contrary to what has been said

    > > elsewhere
    > > > it is not free. The licensing for all but a very narrow use is

    > > significant.
    > > >
    > > > It seems to be a product aimed at the market between MS SQL and MSDE.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > <> wrote in message
    > > > news:%...
    > > > > I built my application using MSSQL, as it was what I was accustomed

    to
    > > > > using. However, with the licensing fees being what they are - when

    my
    > > app
    > > > > outgrew shared hosting and I had to go dedicated, I decided to

    switch
    > to
    > > > > MySQL. I've been really happy with that choice.
    > > > >
    > > > > MySQL definately has some limitations - no stored procs - and worse,

    > no
    > > > > subqueries. The lack of stored procs isn't that big a loss IMO as

    > MySQL
    > > > has
    > > > > proven to be quicker than SQL Server in my application - and whilst

    > > speed
    > > > > may not be the only reason to use SPs, it's certainly one of the

    > bigger
    > > > > ones.
    > > > >
    > > > > the loss of subqueries has hurt - not so much in the application

    > > itself -
    > > > > but in maintenance jobs that i need to run. Now I have to run these
    > > > queries
    > > > > in code so I can use the results of one query in the next. It was a

    > bit
    > > > of
    > > > > a hassle. Also, MySQL is much much easier on RAM than SQL Server.
    > > > >
    > > > > Basically, if you go for MySQL you're trading off a bit of

    convenience
    > > and
    > > > > ease of development for much lower costs and in my opinion, slightly
    > > > greater
    > > > > speed.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Vincent V" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:...
    > > > > > 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
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Andrew de la Harpe, Jul 14, 2003
    #8
  9. Vincent V

    John Sparrow Guest

    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

    "Vincent V" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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
    John Sparrow, Jul 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Vincent V

    John Sparrow Guest

    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


    "Vincent V" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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
    John Sparrow, Jul 14, 2003
    #10
  11. Vincent V

    Alvin Bruney Guest

    something like that, thanks for the correction. should have read it again
    before posting blindly.

    "Andrew de la Harpe" <> wrote in message
    news:#7$...
    > who acquired SAP?
    > My understanding is that MySQL agreed to partner with SAP.
    >
    >
    > "Alvin Bruney" <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote in
    > message news:...
    > > > 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.

    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "joe" <contact_by_Newsgroup_only.please> wrote in message
    > > > news:%...
    > > > > I could be wrong but I believe the latest version of MySQL includes
    > > > support
    > > > > for subqueries. However I note that contrary to what has been said
    > > > elsewhere
    > > > > it is not free. The licensing for all but a very narrow use is
    > > > significant.
    > > > >
    > > > > It seems to be a product aimed at the market between MS SQL and

    MSDE.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:%...
    > > > > > I built my application using MSSQL, as it was what I was

    accustomed
    > to
    > > > > > using. However, with the licensing fees being what they are -

    when
    > my
    > > > app
    > > > > > outgrew shared hosting and I had to go dedicated, I decided to

    > switch
    > > to
    > > > > > MySQL. I've been really happy with that choice.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > MySQL definately has some limitations - no stored procs - and

    worse,
    > > no
    > > > > > subqueries. The lack of stored procs isn't that big a loss IMO as

    > > MySQL
    > > > > has
    > > > > > proven to be quicker than SQL Server in my application - and

    whilst
    > > > speed
    > > > > > may not be the only reason to use SPs, it's certainly one of the

    > > bigger
    > > > > > ones.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > the loss of subqueries has hurt - not so much in the application
    > > > itself -
    > > > > > but in maintenance jobs that i need to run. Now I have to run

    these
    > > > > queries
    > > > > > in code so I can use the results of one query in the next. It was

    a
    > > bit
    > > > > of
    > > > > > a hassle. Also, MySQL is much much easier on RAM than SQL Server.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Basically, if you go for MySQL you're trading off a bit of

    > convenience
    > > > and
    > > > > > ease of development for much lower costs and in my opinion,

    slightly
    > > > > greater
    > > > > > speed.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Vincent V" <> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:...
    > > > > > > 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
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Alvin Bruney, Jul 15, 2003
    #11
  12. Vincent V

    John Sparrow Guest

    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

    "Aemca" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > 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!)

    >
    > where do you think MSSQL has its roots then :)
    John Sparrow, Jul 16, 2003
    #12
  13. Vincent V

    Aemca Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    > "Aemca" <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > > 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!)

    > >
    > > where do you think MSSQL has its roots then :)
    Aemca, Jul 16, 2003
    #13
  14. Vincent V

    John Sparrow Guest

    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

    "Aemca" <> wrote in message news:<ZqaRa.16807$KF1.303485@amstwist00>...
    > 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
    John Sparrow, Jul 16, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JL
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,142
  2. Ravi
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,408
    Suchandra Thapa
    Jul 21, 2003
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    6,191
  4. ecoolone
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    755
    ecoolone
    Jan 3, 2008
  5. washakie
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    922
    washakie
    Jan 15, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page