May 25, 2006 at 5:39 am
Hi
What is the difference between mySQL and SQL 2000.
May 25, 2006 at 12:24 pm
First of all SQL Server only runs on Windows where MySQL runs on Windows and Linux I believe. We don't have MySQL here but we did look at it. I am not 100% convinced it will scale (others may disagree), the last release of the product just introduced stored procs. When they were here on-site last year the new release was just about to be released GA and had some good features in it. From what little I saw SQL Server is a little more mature. Again, take what I saw with a grain of salt as I have not compared both products running any applications.
May 25, 2006 at 12:59 pm
What Markus said was correct. MS SQL is a much more mature database system. It provides you with many things that MY SQL doesn't. But at the end of the day what rdbms you choose will boil down to at least 2 key factors: 1) Does it do what you need it to do and 2) can you afford it.
For example I have worked with PostgreSQL, Oracle a little, and MS Sql 2000 and a bit of 2005. I briefly looked at MySQL when it was v4.1. Once I figured out it didn't support stored procedures I stopped looking at it as a viable candidate for what I was doing. In v5.0 sp's are finally supported. You can Google 'MYSQL vs SQL Server' for various comparisons, and take a look at http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743/0/page/1 it broadens the range of choices and compares a number of databases.
If you can afford MS SQL then I'd recommend you choose that. If what you are trying to do requires a smaller or cheaper alternative you could choose SQL Server Express, it's free and does a large amount of what the Workgroup and Standard versions of MS SQL do but with some limitations. Another free alternative is PostgreSQL. I've been very happy with PostgreSQL and it's done everything I've ever needed it to do. I prefer MS SQL because it's a bit easier to manage, but there are better tools coming out to manage PostgreSQL all the time. Remember that if you're doing things on the cheap MYSQL does cost around $200 to use commercially. MS Standard Ed is only $870, workgroup is even cheaper. Also you need to think about what OS you’ll be putting your database on. I know of a company that runs a 10,000 hit per day website and the backend is redhat fc4 running on dual 300mhz Processors and 512 Mb ram and it chugs along quite well running Postgres 8.0. Response times are great. Perhaps you could give us a bit more of an idea of what you’re looking to do?
Hope this helps.
-Luke.
May 26, 2006 at 1:20 am
Thanks. It was just a general question. I am using sql 2000 but wanted to know the difference. I use store procs so mysql wouldn't be a good choice.
May 26, 2006 at 3:32 am
MS SQL Server is significantly more expensive to run as a multi-user system than ~$800. If you are doing web development for commercial purposes (ie not for your personal website) you need to license it per-processor. That will set you back $5000-6000 per processor (multi-core processors are treated as a single processor, by MS).
If it's for a network application, the server license costs around $800, and then each client license costs a variable amount, depending on how many you buy and under what licensing contract. However, if your implementation is large enough that the costs for licensing each individual user exceeds the cost for a processor license, go with the per-processor licenses, since those are for an unlimited number of users or devices.
MySQL is free to use either personally or commercially.
In my opinion and experience, it is far less polished than MSSQL (especially 2005), but it's sufficient for a lot of things and is certainly a lot leaner than MSSQL.
May 26, 2006 at 8:31 am
Expense is really a TCO calculation. If you are not going to use DTS/SSIS to move data around, won't use reporting services and don't need to develop applications that integrate with other MS products and are willing to search a bit harder to learn how to do what you need to do MySQL may be the better value in terms of total cost of ownership. Of course if you are doing really limited database work you might also consider SQL Server Express Edition as an adequate solution and down the road if your work grows into an enterprise level operation you have a path to ramp up.
In general MySQL is not as well supported (yes I know the zealots will flame me for saying an open source product isn't as well supported) not just by the company but by a community of people using the product in prduction environments. The SQL Server user community is large, growing and very willing to share what they know about using this tool. And the dialog between that community and the SQL Server team at MS is very active as well. The MySQL community is active as well, but there aren't as many people in that community doing enterprise level and application development level work so you are drawing on less experience. When you need to hire someone to support your application you are also drawing on a smaller pool. These may be significant factors in how expensive a MySQL solution ultimately turns out to be.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply