[plug] MySQL versus NT SQL Server

[Phillip Steege]

Thanks to all for the MySQL inputs.  I have a much better base of
information to evaluate our situation now.

Regards,
Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonb at firestation.fdns.net [mailto:leonb at firestation.fdns.net]On
> Behalf Of Leon Brooks
> Sent: Saturday, 13 May 2000 23:34
> To: plug at plug.linux.org.au
> Subject: Re: [plug] MySQL versus NT SQL Server
>
>
> Phillip Steege wrote:
> > I have been trying to convince our IT department to look at MySQL as a
> > viable alternative to NT SQL Server.
>
> It's not. MySQL is missing some pieces; in particular, it has no
> transaction processing (COMMIT/ROLLBACK and friends) and from reading
> the documentation, the authors don't understand the need for it and
> won't include it anytime soon.
>
> PostGreSQL is much, much better in the SQL department (especially
> release 7.0), but the ODBC may not be up to scratch. Expect this to be
> thoroughly fixed Real Soon Now, since the "background" work in
> preparation for release 7.1 removes many of the remaining limitations,
> the ODBC is being worked on too, and besides that the PostGreSQL team
> are having $US25,000,000 (yep, that's the right number of zeroes) spent
> on them. At least.
>
> > Currently we have an ALR8200 server running NT 4.0.  Our engineers use
> > Access databases on NT workstations and want to have these
> databases served.
>
> > I recommended going to a Linux OS and MySQL mostly for price
> difference, but
> > I would also like to show performance improvements in my pitch
> to managment.
> > Does anyone know of any web documents showing comparison
> performance studies
> > of MySQL versus NT SQL server?
>
> If you want startling performace, try Kx (http://www.kx.com/); it's used
> by some significant names in the financial realm, but sadly isn't open
> source.
>
> Interbase is at a comparable level of development to PostGreSQL, and
> seems to be trying really, really hard to become Open Source too.
>
> MS-SQL hasn't been that bad since it was rewritten completely from the
> ground up not so long ago. The bummer is that it it needs to be run
> under NT. If that server has _any_ wired network connectivity, your
> company's databases are at risk - moreso if the other boxes on the wire
> are Windows bozes.
>
> --
> Dogs have masters. Cats have staff.
>