Other databases
-
The ORACLE thread continues to elicit interest but I would like to know what other databases people use and why?
We use MYSQL http://www.mysql.com/ because we are a web development house with a need for a cheap cross platform database.
We are beginning to look at POSTGRES http://www.postgresql.org/ as a 2nd open source database as this supports data referential integrity and stored procedures.
We are currently using SYBASE for one particular project (why, for God sake tell me why).
Our ORACLEp exposure is limited to its use as the engine behind one of the web content managemnent systems we use.
-
If you're looking for open source you might take a look at http://www.sapdb.org. To my knowledge it powers all? SAP solutions.
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
I have begun to experiment with FileMakerPro http://www.filemakerpro.com/ just because.
I hit a lot of Oracle servers that are running behind many of the production systems here (mostly large scale datawarehouses and a problem management server).
I have hit but go rid of Informix which was running behind our cal center switches.
I have hit SYBASE but no longer which was a problem management server.
We are playing with MySQL a bit here (just because someone said let's take a look).
Use Access (many legacy user databases I am still resposible to support version 2, 95, 97, and 2000).
There are just so many out there thou that it makes for quite and interesting time if you explore them.
-
Looking through the Wrox Press Book "Beginning PHP4 Databases" the comments that it makes on MySQL and PostGres are
MySQL
- Optimised for Reads only apps.
- Doesn't support DRI.
- Doesn't support views or stored procedures.
- Doesn't support transactions or locking
It does make reference to InnoDB http://www.innodb.com which provides an interface to MySQL in an attempt to provide transactions, DRI etc.
Apparently MySQL4 will have these features built in anyway and will include stored procedures.
It waxes lyrical about PostGres
- Object-relational database
- Supports user defined data-types
- Structured Datatypes
- Table inheritance
I'm not sure what all that meant but it sounds interesting.
I've had a brief look at it and there are one or two interesting looking things beyond the above that have me rooting around the documentation.
RedHat ships a version optimised for PostGres .
-
We're primarily a SQL Server shop, but I do play with MySQL off and on.
MySQL, using the Berkeley piece, does support transactions. Stored procedures, true referential integrity support, and a job scheduler are supposed to all be in the next major version of MySQL.
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.truthsolutions.com/
Author: Start to Finish Guide to SQL Server Performance Monitoring
http://www.netimpress.com/shop/product.asp?ProductID=NI-SQL1
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley -
I'm mainly a MS SQL Server guy, but I toyed around a bit with a pretty interesting databse called Caché from Intersystems. Runs on Unix, Linux or Windows, is really easy for webapplication development and has some interesting features. There's a free download available on their site.
http://www.intersystems.com/cache/cache5/
[font="Verdana"]Markus Bohse[/font]
-
quote:
We are currently using SYBASE for one particular project (why, for God sake tell me why).
Not happy with Sybase? Curiosity impels me to ask, why not? I did Sybase up until about Sybase 11, from 1991 to 1999, which is when I landed my first job as a SQL Server DBA in a 6.5 shop.
Of course, SQL Server is Son of Sybase. 6.5 seemed really close. It may be less so now, but I haven't seen Sybase since 1999, so I don't know. In my opinion, Microsoft has certainly improved upon its Sybase genetic code, but Sybase always seemed like a respectable DBMS to me. They're probably losing out for a variety of reasons, but I always saw it as serviceable.
-
quote:
Not happy with Sybase? Curiosity impels me to ask, why not?
It's more of a case of having used SQL since 6.5 and having experience with SQL7 and SQL2000 since their first release going back to SyBase seems a big step back.
Add to this that the server has been installed as case sensitive. The server itself is managed by an external agency.
We had a problem with replication where it seemed to be replicating commands rather than data. As the service is external and I'm only involved at the periphery I wasn't able to get to the bottom of it and the external agency was decidedly woolly on the ins and outs of it.
I suppose its abit like flying on Konkordski after being used to Concorde.
-
We are mainly an internal SQL Server shop, but moving towards DB2/UDB. Our software (which we sell) is being pushed on DB2 mainly for marketing reasons. I've got an article on DB2 coming out soon.
I've been working with SQL Server for 12 year now, done some development against Oracle and (very little) admin work. Seems cumbresome to me.
Played with MySQL last year. Worked well, as long as you were comfortable with command line, no issues. Know there are web front ends out there to make it easier. I question the fault tolerance or recovery from issues, but honesly haven't done enough work. People on Slashdot for the most part swear by it.
PostGres - a little work. Seems to be a higher end db and MySQL, used to be slower, but benchmarks show it to be more robust. A *nix friend likes it better than MySQL, more features. Haven't really done more than install it, create a few tables, run a few queries.
Worked with bTreive a little.
Honestly, most of them do the same thing these days, some higher end features, but we could easily use any of them to power this site or any other. If you have some specialized need, then maybe you prefer one, but personally, for 90+% of the work I do, any would work.
I will say that SQL Server's tools seem much more advanced and easy to use than others. Maybe because I'm more familiar, but they seem more mature on a Windows platform. Can't speak about other platforms. DTS is also a huge advantage over the other platforms.
Steve Jones
http://qa.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com -
I've worked with Access, MySQL (for those cash-strapped web companies) and just a little of Postgres. I was impressed with Postgres.
Patrick
Quand on parle du loup, on en voit la queue
-
quote:
It's more of a case of having used SQL since 6.5 and having experience with SQL7 and SQL2000 since their first release going back to SyBase seems a big step back.
Agreed, especially in the realm of ergonomics. I really appreciate, for example, the ability to run backups and do maintenance plans from a GUI. In Sybase, backups were done using scripts to a Sun tape device.
(I do, however, prefer Unix to Windows. I may never like Windows, which is unfortunate since it seems I am here to stay.)
quote:
Add to this that the server has been installed as case sensitive. The server itself is managed by an external agency.
IMHO, case sensitivity is a bad idea. Just say no. I wish I could take that good advice myself, but noooo.... Two of our servers are running Lawson, and my experience with Lawson techies is that they get downright snippy when you tell them you prefer case-insensitive.
quote:
I suppose its abit like flying on Konkordski after being used to Concorde.
On the other hand, if you're looking for a stewardess who can open a stuck jar or move some heavy luggage for you, my money is on the ones who work for Konkordski.
[/quote]
-
quote:
We are mainly an internal SQL Server shop, but moving towards DB2/UDB. Our software (which we sell) is being pushed on DB2 mainly for marketing reasons. I've got an article on DB2 coming out soon.
Oops forgot I hit several DB2 servers, older running on mainframe and AIX and I hate the thing. Automated my process and haven't thought about it in a while.
-
Hi,
here in the office we strictly use MS products. That's management decision and it's ok for me. I like Access as a frontend to SQL Server, because you can do some things more easy in Access than in SQL Server. In my spare time I use to play with MySQL, but on a Linux system. Although MySQL performs well on Windows System, I think it performs even better on Unix systems. There are quite a few good Gui admin tools for MySQL like phyMyAdmin...., so you don't have to deal with the command line.
I agree with antares686. There are some many systems out there. And to my believe there is nothing like the 'best' system. The best system is that one that fits your needs. And that needs can change frequently.
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
I've run interbase, mysql, postgress, sybase ASA and ASE, ingress and oracle.
my day to day job is all DB2 in a data warehouse. (mm love those AS400's.. i mean iSeries.. we are thinking about a new spankin i890... wish!)
DB2/os400 i really like like like.
for home, firebird/interbase is very good, very stable.
i really dont like mysql+postgress (my hosting site is stuck with mysql tho).
the last time I used oracle was.. iirc 8? and we heavily used its case tools and other bits, and I really really didnt like it.
if I do work at home or that, I try and use firebird/interbase. small memory footprint, reliable, stable, transactional/storedprocs/views etc. its got the goods. stable on my freebsd box and my windows box.
-
Hi David,
Apparently MySQL4 will have these features built in anyway and will include stored procedures.
Sorry, not until Version 5. Also triggers.
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url]
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 34 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply