473,327 Members | 1,997 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,327 software developers and data experts.

MS SQL or MYSQL

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
Nov 17 '05 #1
20 1952
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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

Nov 17 '05 #2
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

Nov 17 '05 #3
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.htmlsay other things:
In short say that all this is supported in the *current* version...
1. View
2. Foreign key
3. Sub Query
4. Transaction


Nov 17 '05 #4
nope, subqueries are not supported in the current version - current is
4.0.13 - go have another look
"Mamcx" <th******@notexist.com> wrote in message
news:ea**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
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


Nov 17 '05 #5
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:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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.


<ch***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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



Nov 17 '05 #6
nope, subqueries are not supported in the current version - current is
4.0.13 - go have another look
"Mamcx" <th******@notexist.com> wrote in message
news:ea**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
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


Nov 17 '05 #7
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:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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.


<ch***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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



Nov 17 '05 #8
> 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:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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.


<ch***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> 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
>
>



Nov 17 '05 #9
> 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:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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.


<ch***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> 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
>
>



Nov 17 '05 #10
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:ed**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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.


<ch***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>



Nov 17 '05 #11
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:ed**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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.


<ch***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>



Nov 17 '05 #12
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
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

Nov 17 '05 #13
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
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

Nov 17 '05 #14
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
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

Nov 17 '05 #15
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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
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

Nov 17 '05 #16
something like that, thanks for the correction. should have read it again
before posting blindly.

"Andrew de la Harpe" <an*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#7**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
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:ed**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> 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. >
>
>
>
>
>
> <ch***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > 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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Nov 17 '05 #17
something like that, thanks for the correction. should have read it again
before posting blindly.

"Andrew de la Harpe" <an*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#7**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
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:ed**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> 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. >
>
>
>
>
>
> <ch***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > 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" <vincentv@-n0-5pam-optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:ee**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Nov 17 '05 #18
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" <no**@none.com> wrote in message news:<eU**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
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 :)

Nov 17 '05 #19
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_...-Teradata.html

sybase ---> MS SQL

from:
http://www.tietovayla.fi/borland/INT...ybasewp/#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/evaluat...y/timeline.asp
"John Sparrow" <js******@ecclescollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:13*************************@posting.google.co m...
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" <no**@none.com> wrote in message

news:<eU**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
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 :)

Nov 17 '05 #20
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" <ae***@somewhere.com> 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_...-Teradata.html

Nov 17 '05 #21

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

2
by: francescomoi | last post by:
Hi. I'm trying to build 'MySQL-python-1.2.0' on my Linux FC2: ---------------------------------- # export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/mysql/bin/ # export mysqlclient=mysqlclient_r # python setup.py...
4
by: mikey | last post by:
Hi all, I'm having great problems trying to install the latest MySQl RPM package onto my Red Hat Linux OS. There is already MySQL v 3.0 pre-installed with the RH Linux distribution disk but I...
0
by: Yun Guan | last post by:
Hello mysql gurus, I am trying to run perl on mysql database on Red Hat box. I want to install DBI and DBD:mysql using CPAN: perl -MCPAN -e shell cpan>install DBI The above succeeded, but...
0
by: Mike Chirico | last post by:
Interesting Things to Know about MySQL Mike Chirico (mchirico@users.sourceforge.net) Copyright (GPU Free Documentation License) 2004 Last Updated: Mon Jun 7 10:37:28 EDT 2004 The latest...
2
by: Saqib Ali | last post by:
I installed mySQL and have it running.... but I think I made a mistake somewhere along the line...... I believe I did follow the instructions that were provided with the distribution at:...
1
by: Alex Hunsley | last post by:
I am trying to install the DBD::mysql perl module. However, it claims I need mysql.h: cpan> install DBD::mysql CPAN: Storable loaded ok Going to read /home/alex/.cpan/Metadata Database was...
0
by: ./Rob & | last post by:
Hi gang: I'm experiencing a problem with MySQL -- I updated MySQL from version 4.1.0 to 4.1.10 and now when I login as root it doesn't show all the databases I should have access to, nor it...
2
by: trihanhcie | last post by:
I m currently working on a Unix server with a fedora 3 as an os My current version of mysql is 3.23.58. I'd like to upgrade the version to 5.0.18. After downloading from MYSQL.COM the package on...
1
by: manish deshpande | last post by:
Hi, When i'm installing MySQL-server-standard-5.0.24a-0.rhel3.i386.rpm by the following command: rpm -i MySQL-server-standard-5.0.24a-0.rhel3.i386.rpm the following error is being shown: ...
3
by: menzies | last post by:
Hi, I"m new to this forum, but I have been trying all day to install DBD::mysql onto my Intel MacBook. I've read lots of forums pages and none have gotten me to a successful 'make test' or a...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.