|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
MySql or MsSql?
What do you think of it?
Do you prefer Mysql to Mssql?
Do you prefer Mysql to Mssql?
is ms sql the same as sql server?
I would go MySQL.
MsSQL is made by microsoft. I think that fact speaks for itself.
| Fire Boar wrote: |
| MsSQL is made by microsoft. I think that fact speaks for itself. |
Nice, lol. I generally like to stay away from Microsoft. As for my own opinion, I guess I'll have to choose MySql because I've never used MsSql... MySql is pretty powerful so I've never bothered to learn anything else... you can do plenty with php/mysql.
I am automatically guessing that MsSQL costs money. Without a doubt Microsoft is trying to earn more money, even though people can just go out and download MySQL without any hassles.
MySQL all the way, but I would say that they should both by around the same.
MySQL all the way, but I would say that they should both by around the same.
I'd go with MySQL just because I'm not really a big fan of MS. 
Mysql isn't difficult but very slow.Mssql is very difficult but very fast.
Just to be sure.. If I say "Yes" at the poll it means that I prefer MySql?
In that case, it depends on what I have to do, but my default answer is MySql, so yes
My 2 cents
In that case, it depends on what I have to do, but my default answer is MySql, so yes
My 2 cents
I hate Microsoft, that why I'm choosing mysql.
| ayoub wrote: |
| I hate Microsoft, that why I'm choosing mysql. |
Why ?I agree with the people here, I've never heard of mssql. I only use mysql, and I like it!
MSSQL can't be compared with MySQL. It's like comparing ant and elephant asking which is big.
MSSQL can be compared with, let's say something like access.
MySQL is a biggie which is comparable to DBs like Oracle.
MSSQL can be compared with, let's say something like access.
MySQL is a biggie which is comparable to DBs like Oracle.
I think we have to closely look at their differences before we will conclude which is BEST...
Performance Comparison
Features Comparison
Data Storage
Database Features
Database Warehousing
Administration and Maintenance
Performance Comparison
| Quote: |
| As of June 2006, SQL Server 2000 holds the third position in the OLTP Test in price by performance results and Microsoft SQL Server 2005×64 holds the first place. However MySQL does not participate in these tests, so it is difficult to make a head on comparison using TPC benchmarks.
In some benchmarks, MySQL has proven to be faster in its basic table format, MyISAM. MyISAM databases are very compact on disk and place little demand on CPU cycles and memory. MySQL can run on Windows without complaint but performs better on UNIX and UNIX-like systems. Additional performance gains can be had by using MySQL on a 64-bit processor, because MySQL uses an abundance of 64-bit integers internally. Much of the very busy Yahoo! Finance portal and Slashdot use MySQL as a back-end database. |
Features Comparison
| Quote: |
| Although many of the limits placed by the database are for the purists, some are important for everyone to take note, for example, maximum length of the column name (8 VS 128) can be a major issue. If you have a column in MS-SQL named “ThisIsMine”, every reference to it will have to be changed when you rename that column to “ThisMine” so it will work within MySql strict limits.
Some of these built-in limitations may be crucial for database design. Varchar size especially can be problematic, as often stored data such as comments or articles may be forced into BLOBs or TEXT columns. Total row size is also important for this reason. |
Data Storage
| Quote: |
| SQL Server with its closed, proprietary storage engine is fundamentally different from MySQL extensible, open storage engine. Its Sybase-derived database engine boasts of an adaptive algorithm that does most of the tuning that earlier needed to done manually. While SQL Server 2000 chooses the strategy of a single engine doing all the work, MySQL supports pluggable storage engines that can be chosen depending upon the facilities needed.
MySQL’s strategy is useful for various types of database use: quick read access to data without the need for transactional overhead is provided by the built in MyISAM engine, whereas InnoDB, a third party database engine owned by Oracle and licensed under the GPL is most often used for transactions and other features at the cost of some read performance. The MEMORY storage engine creates tables with contents that are stored in memory, and is useful for embedded database applications. NDB Cluster is the storage engine used by MySQL Cluster to implement tables that are partitioned over many computers. |
Database Features
| Quote: |
| One of the critical features of any database engine is data integrity. ACID (Atomic, Consistent, Isolated, and Durable) compliance is a qualification that assures data integrity. ACID essentially means that when a transaction is performed within a database, either the whole transaction is successful and the information is written to the database, or nothing is written. Both SQL Server 2000 and MySQL supports ACID-compliant transaction functionality. SQL Server locks are dynamically applied at various levels of granularity, in order to select the least restrictive lock required for the transaction.
InnoDB provides MySQL with a transaction-safe (ACID compliant) storage engine with commit, rollback, and crash recovery capabilities. InnoDB does locking on the row level and also provides an Oracle-style consistent non-locking read in SELECT statements. These features increase multi-user concurrency and performance. In SQL queries you can freely mix InnoDB type tables with other table types of MySQL, even within the same query. With the new release of MySQL 5.0, it has now incorporated several features that were missing earlier, and thus some of the reasons that caused you to choose SQL Server 2000 are no longer valid, for example, the need of Views, Cursors and Procedures. One thing now lacking is the full support for triggers. Another thing in which MySQL lags behind is XML support, and with the release of Yukon, this is going to look like a big gap in functionality. |
Database Warehousing
| Quote: |
| The data warehouses or data marts can be used for sophisticated enterprise intelligence systems that process queries required to discover trends and analyze critical factors. These systems are called online analytical processing (OLAP) systems. The data in data warehouses and data marts is organized differently than in traditional transaction processing databases.
While SQL Server 2000 provides a lot of tools for creating and managing data warehouses, MySQL does not have any significant support for it. Data Transformation Services (DTS) provides a set of services used to build a data warehouse or data mart. Analysis Services is an excellent tool for multidimensional analysis of data in SQL Server 2000 databases. Analysis Services supports multidimensional queries against cubes with hundreds of millions of dimensions and you can even control cube security down to the level of cells and members. Data mining allows you to define models containing grouping and predictive rules that can be applied to data in either a relational database or multi-dimensional OLAP cubes. These predictive models are then used to automatically perform sophisticated analysis of the data to find trends. |
Administration and Maintenance
| Quote: |
|
MySQL provides two types of backup, one where the database dump is taken and another where it emits all the SQL statements required to create the database. SQL Server 2000 only provides the first option. When it comes to hot backups, or backing up your database without shutting it down, both database solutions have methods for doing so. MySQL supports incremental backup strategy for minimizing the amount of time taken if an existing database backup is present. |
| Diablosblizz wrote: |
| I am automatically guessing that MsSQL costs money. Without a doubt Microsoft is trying to earn more money, even though people can just go out and download MySQL without any hassles.
MySQL all the way, but I would say that they should both by around the same. |
There is an express edition (ie FREE) of msSQL which should suffice the casual users of databases and if your using mySQL in the first place, then it seems you are a small firm anyways.
I thing, MSSQL should be better. MySql is so easy and is partially usable from version 5. I prefer Firebird and PostgreSQL so I vote for nothing.
I prefer MySQL - simply because it's free!
I've used both quite extensively. MySQL is best for web based stuff, but MSSQL is quite powerful for desktop applications. If you want to try MSSQL for web, download and install the MS Visual Web Developer from Microsoft as this comes with MSSQL 2005 Express.
I use MySQL a lot with my web apps. I would take open source over a microsoft product any day.
The best thing about MySql as opposed to Sql Server (besides being free ) is how lightweight it is. Sql Server, while as someone said before is good for desktop apps, it's quite the beast comparatively.
) is how lightweight it is. Sql Server, while as someone said before is good for desktop apps, it's quite the beast comparatively.Chose MySQL. I tend to stay away from Microsoft stuff. And I never used MsSQL anyway. 
As everyone said here, just to be NORMAL, i'd choose MySQL.
Just look at any tutorial, have you ever seen "Learn PHP and MSSQL".. of course not, because it is not popular.
Maybe for desktop applications it is more powerful, but even in that case, Oracle wins over MsSQL. That was simply like IE, an attempt to win customers into some areas that they don't master. They'll just never learn, stay with your OS, and leave the world alone!
And most of all, completely eliminate IE!
Just look at any tutorial, have you ever seen "Learn PHP and MSSQL".. of course not, because it is not popular.
Maybe for desktop applications it is more powerful, but even in that case, Oracle wins over MsSQL. That was simply like IE, an attempt to win customers into some areas that they don't master. They'll just never learn, stay with your OS, and leave the world alone!
And most of all, completely eliminate IE!
I prefer MySQL... its simply Open Source & free to use
for sure mysql
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ||
Nice, lol. I generally like to stay away from Microsoft. As for my own opinion, I guess I'll have to choose MySql because I've never used MsSql... MySql is pretty powerful so I've never bothered to learn anything else... you can do plenty with php/mysql. |
Well, I've used both. And, truth being told, MySQL doesn't brag about its capabilities for nothing.
On the same machine (running WIN XP) MySQL outran MSSQL with about 3 secs for a DB with 15 million entries. Also, MSSQL is a memory hog... Eate up almost twice as much as MySQL.
In short, mysql is still the best.
MySQL is certainly more than sufficient for all but the biggest projects - it's not to meant to be a hugely powerful server for huge applications; that would be more the field of MSSQL, Oracle, etc. They're two different products for two different targets; you can't really compare them.
dude mssql is really bad....
Yeah, I perfer MySQL over MsSQL.
| Fire Boar wrote: |
| MsSQL is made by microsoft. I think that fact speaks for itself. |
Agreed
MySql is quite better iddI prefer MySQL.
I know it much better than MsSQL
I know it much better than MsSQL
MySQL here 
. I don't hear about Microfsoft's MssQL...
MySQL is very fine ...
Oops, i choice "No"
.
. I don't hear about Microfsoft's MssQL...
MySQL is very fine
...
Oops, i choice "No"
.I have never actually used mssql so I guess i had to go with mysql.
| FlyingYouri wrote: |
| MySQL here . I don't hear about Microfsoft's MssQL...
MySQL is very fine ...
Oops, i choice "No" . |
No! One vote on MsSQL is one vote to much.
Like everyone else I think MySQL is the best one.
| wietn wrote: |
| I prefer MySQL.
I know it much better than MsSQL |
so am I v
Is depending of your need. even so MSSQL [SUCKS BIG TIME]. MySQL is more flexible, easy to use ... and a great feature that MSSQL not have is... FEEEEE.
Related topics
 |