SQL Server -vs- MySQL

[_R]

I'm considering porting some code that originated in MySQL. Current
code is unmanaged, but I may port to .NET. I'm not that familiar with
MySQL at this point, so I'd like to determine whether to stay with
MySQL (presuming there is an interface to ADO or ADO.NET ...is
there?) or to go with more familiar SQL Server using MSDE in the
distrib.

I'm more comfortable with SQL Server/MSDE, especially given the
extensive interface to ADO/ADO.NET. I'm curious about why MySQL is so
popular, especially given that MSDE is free.

 

[Geoff N. Hiten]

IMHO, it is a religious issue. Some programmers will go to any lengths to
avoid a commercial product, even one that is free.

BTW, I would look at SQLExpress, the SQL 2005 incarnation of MSDE. It is
also free but has a lot of SQL 2005 enhancements. As a developer, you
should look at Service Broker. That feature alone should make the decision
pretty obvious.

 

[Jerry Spivey]

I'd be very suprised if I saw "no...use MySQL" in this NG. I'd check out
SQL Server 2005 Express for a peak at what is ahead...might help you justify
your decision for tomorrow today.

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/express/default.mspx

HTH

Jerry

 

[WJ]

I'm more comfortable with SQL Server/MSDE, especially given the
extensive interface to ADO/ADO.NET.

It makes sense to go with MS/SQL if you are using MS Windows & .Net stuffs.

I'm curious about why MySQL is so popular, especially given that MSDE is
free.

MySQL is open source, therefore it is that popular for non-Microsoft people.
At the time MySQL came out, MSDE was not free (I could be wrong here) and or
cumbersome to manage because MSDE does not have a UI to play with. Again I
donot know MySQL that much so I donot know if it has a good UI ? On
Security, years ago MSDE was hit very bad with wide open "sa" account with
blank password allowed. And finally, MS/SQL and or MSDE only work on
MS/Windows OSes. There are lots of Unix & Linux out there who favor "open
source", which I am 1. My suggestion is to use other products too so that if
MS ever gone whacky, it will not be able to pull you down with it !

In short. If you intend to use MySQL as backend RDBMS on your clients, then
it makes lots of sense to go non-MS products such as Borland Delphi, Delphi
for .Net, JBuilder. Borland alone have good tools to interface with MySql &
Oracle and or IBM products such as DB2.

John

 

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

I'm considering porting some code that originated in MySQL. Current
code is unmanaged, but I may port to .NET. I'm not that familiar with
MySQL at this point, so I'd like to determine whether to stay with
MySQL (presuming there is an interface to ADO or ADO.NET ...is
there?) or to go with more familiar SQL Server using MSDE in the
distrib.

MySql has a .NET provider, though it's GPL-ed. If you don't want to
use GPL-ed code in your code, you can buy a license for 249$ (or more),
or you could use crlab's MySql provider.

All in all, it works ok. Though MySql has some issues, at least in the
4.x codebase, for example in transaction management. If you don't care
that much about that, it's fine.

I'm more comfortable with SQL Server/MSDE, especially given the
extensive interface to ADO/ADO.NET. I'm curious about why MySQL is so
popular, especially given that MSDE is free.

MySql is popular because it's used a lot by readmany-writesometimes
websites, e.g.: dynamic websites written in php which basicly read a
lot of data from the db, but seldomly write data (compared to the # of
reads) to the DB. MySql in MyISAM mode doesn't have the transaction
overhead and can read very fast. Of course, writes can get lost and you
can screw up your entire database with a blink of an eye, but for these
websites that's not an issue.

Serious development on MySql... I have my doubts.

FB

--

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

R.

This is in my opinion no question for a Microsoft newsgroup.

It is as asking to a Porsche fan club what is a better car a Ferrari or a
Porsche.

Just my idea

Cor

 

[Payson]

For quite a few years, I have spent my days writing code for SQL
Server. About a year ago, because I am a nice guy, I took on a pro
bono side project in which I have to use MySQL. It's still going on -
maybe 5 hours per week.

Based on that experience - how can I put this delicately??

MySQL SUCKS!!!

The version supplied to me doesn't support any subqueries, let alone
correlated subqueries. It has issues with outer joins and unions that
Sql Server doesn't have. It doesn't support views (possibly later
versions have corrected some of these shortcomings). And so on.

Just my $.02.

Payson

 

[Benton]

I'm more comfortable with SQL Server/MSDE, especially given the

extensive interface to ADO/ADO.NET. I'm curious about why MySQL is so
popular, especially given that MSDE is free.

Simple. Microsoft RDBM systems are for Windows only, and, as you can
imagine, non-MS developers use another OS for the database server.

But I agree with a previous poster, this days it is a religious issue. In
the meantime, I'm quite happy with Firebird SQL Server. Better than SQL
Server and Mysql combined ;-)

Regards,

-Benton

 

[CT]

Hmm, I use both, but as a (primarily) MS developer, I use MS SQL Server most
frequently. However, I do think mySQL is a good a free alternative.

 

[Miha Markic [MVP C#]]

I wouldn't do any serious programing on mySql because you need reliablity
when you do serious stuff.
I can't immagine recomending mySql server to a, for example, financial
institution.

 

[CT]

Miha,

I don't want to start a "war" between two different database products, but
to imply that mySQL isn't reliable, is just plain wrong.

--
Carsten Thomsen
Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk

I wouldn't do any serious programing on mySql because you need reliablity
when you do serious stuff.
I can't immagine recomending mySql server to a, for example, financial
institution.

--
Miha Markic [MVP C#]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/

I'm considering porting some code that originated in MySQL. Current
code is unmanaged, but I may port to .NET. I'm not that familiar with
MySQL at this point, so I'd like to determine whether to stay with
MySQL (presuming there is an interface to ADO or ADO.NET ...is
there?) or to go with more familiar SQL Server using MSDE in the
distrib.

I'm more comfortable with SQL Server/MSDE, especially given the
extensive interface to ADO/ADO.NET. I'm curious about why MySQL is so
popular, especially given that MSDE is free.

 

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

R.

This is in my opinion no question for a Microsoft newsgroup.

It is as asking to a Porsche fan club what is a better car a Ferrari
or a Porsche.

Could you please stop bitching about who is allowed to post in which
newsgroup? As if this is the Alt.Bitch.About.NewsPostings newsgroup...

FB

--

 

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Miha,

I don't want to start a "war" between two different database
products, but to imply that mySQL isn't reliable, is just plain wrong.

a database with a transactional system which can leave dangling
records in the db when a transaction fails, IS unreliable.

FB

--

 

[Miha Markic [MVP C#]]

Hi,

Miha,

I don't want to start a "war" between two different database products,

Neither do I.

but

to imply that mySQL isn't reliable, is just plain wrong.

I wasn't implying that it isn't reliable - or maybe I was
The simple fact that mySql didn't have transactions until recently (correct
me if I am wrong) is scarry enough for me.
Not to mention Frans' comments.
But even if it is reliable enough no serious institution will pick it over
Sql Server or Oracle

 

[CT]

Frans,

I'm not arguing against your point, but the fact is that MySQL has been
around for a long time, and while there might be issues as you point out,
doesn't make it unreliable in the long run.

Thanks for poiting it out though.

 

[CT]

Hi Miha,

Inline please.

--
Carsten Thomsen
Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk

Hi,



Neither do I.

but

I wasn't implying that it isn't reliable - or maybe I was
The simple fact that mySql didn't have transactions until recently
(correct me if I am wrong) is scarry enough for me. Valid point.
Not to mention Frans' comments.
But even if it is reliable enough no serious institution will pick it over
Sql Server or Oracle

I think you might be wrong there. I'm not arguing that MySQL has more
martket sher with the bigger companies, but there are big companies out
there that use MySQL. I would recommend MS SQL Server myself in most cases,
and almost certainly when it comes to bigger installations. However, I'm
trying to make a point here too... ;-)

 

[David Portas]

doesn't make it unreliable in the long run.

Why? In what way will a database without transaction support become
more reliable over a longer period of time? It won't. If you mean users
should upgrade to a version with transaction support then say so. Don't
imply that it isn't a serious issue of reliability.

 

[CT]

David,

What I mean is that MySQL has a fairly long history of being reliable,
AFAIK. I don't want to get into a discussion on what reliable means, because
as I think I can to tell from your post, reliable means transaction support,
which it doesn't in my book. I might have misread Miha's original mail
however, if that implies transaction support. Reliable in my book also means
it's stable, which of course could be expressed by the term "stability". So,
while I think we disagree on this one, I most certainly agree that
transaction support is a must for many systems/applications.

While it seems MySQL has problems with transactions, I have no doubt it will
be fixed. Now, I'm not an advocate for MySQL, and I don't want to turn into
one (in fact I use various editions and versions of MS SQL Server), but I do
think MySQL is good free alternative, period.

 

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

but

I wasn't implying that it isn't reliable - or maybe I was
The simple fact that mySql didn't have transactions until recently
(correct me if I am wrong) is scarry enough for me.

InnoDB, recently bought by Oracle, was the transaction aware db
storage for MySql, it's available for some time. Works ok, but has some
issues.

Not to mention Frans' comments.
But even if it is reliable enough no serious institution will pick it
over Sql Server or Oracle

You'd be surprised... (no I'm not mentioning names)

FB

--

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Could you please stop bitching about who is allowed to post in which

newsgroup? As if this is the Alt.Bitch.About.NewsPostings newsgroup...

I was only giving my opinion. Nowhere is in my message that somebody should
not post to this newsgroup.

The only meaning from my message is, that the OP should not expect many real
not biased answers.

You tell consequently things about me, in your message that I don't do.

Your kind of abusing is not allowed in these messages you should know that.

You have already made once your appoligezes for that, however it seems it
were only empty words, which means nothing. .

Cor