December 23, 2005 at 12:15 pm
This caught my eye during a slow time last week while I was browsing Slashdot for amusement. It seems that Builder.au, an Australian site run by developers for developers, reviewed 4 database platforms, MySQL, Oracle, DB2, and SQL Server. I was curious to see how they'd rate things, though since the story came in Slashdot, I expected MySQL to be the winner.
This wasn't a real "test", from what I read, however. More it was an informational posting about the four platforms, obviously skewed away from SQL Server, but curiously enough, they tested MySQL on Windows. The article seemed like a basic article on databases for new developers as the second page was devoted to defining many database terms. Then is appears that the subsequent pages touch on the features of the platforms, especially the costs and not much in terms of their performance or ease of development.
In fact, it seems that while the comparison is MySQL v SQL Server Express v DB2 Express (Oracle did not have a free product when this was written and Oracle Standard was used), it seems to focus more on subtilely shifting the developers to MySQL. There is mentions that DB2 features are cut out of the free edition, specifically citing partitioning, which is a high end feature for their expensive Enterprise edition. They also compare DB2s limited 512GB size per table to MySQLs 64TB limit.
The Oracle comparison isn't much better, spending lots of time talking about the cost and potential locking problems under load. That surprised me since I've always heard that Oracle has the best locking strategy and can handle any load.
Of course, the MySQL section pushes the fact that no features have been left out and while you can purchase support, why would you? And it's locking is "so memory efficient, requiring just a couple of bits per row lock." Installation is fast and simple, and the GUIs available for download are nothing short of amazing.
Then we come to SQL Server Express. Supposedly it's the replacement for MSDE (which it is) and "based on the old Access technology." That looks like what my wife's horse leaves behind for me to shovel. They do talk about features, but I have to discount most of their comments when they say "We found we were unable to connect at all with the database when we tried to use Windows Authentication, so we reinstalled with the Mixed Mode option and all was fine." If you cannot connect with Windows Auth, I would venture to guess that you are probably not even remotely capable of evaluating this database platform.
Not to say that their conclusion of MySQL as a great choice for a small web company is wrong. I think MySQL is a good product and if you have developers familiar with it (and production people) and cost is an issue, there's nothing wrong with using it. It may even outperform SQL Server or the others in cases, but I think that's more a product of the design of the application than the platform itself. I don't think it provides everything that SQL Server provides and in a small company, is the $5-10k difference worth it? Hard to say. It might be or might not. You'd have to decide.
I guess I'm annoyed by the article spreading a load to young and new developers. Maybe they should change their slogan:
Written for amateurs, by amateurs.
Steve Jones
December 26, 2005 at 8:00 am
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
December 26, 2005 at 10:33 am
opinions are like a$$holes in a number of ways ... first everyone has one, second some are bigger than than others ... need I say more based on the source of the article (which I am now reading) ...
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
December 26, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Steve,
It is not surprising to find the ever-geekening masses lobbing pot-shots at the big guys. They do it to inflate their egos and impress their girlfriends.
Or do I have that backwards?
jg
December 26, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Definitely backwards!
December 27, 2005 at 7:07 am
I think people get too emotional over stuff like this.
When people start to get too uptight about product (or even worse, corporate) identity it's time to step back (I remember having to prevent an almost physical fight between a couple of young guys over insults to the quality of the AS400 .... good thing they didn't have pistols)
Frankly I'm more concerned with what works, I have no loyalty or disloyalty to MS (I really like SQL Server and Access, dislike Word and detest Outlook), but hell these are just products. Not worth emotional expenditure.
Philosophically I think we really need a healthy, viable open source world if, for nothing else, to keep the corporate suppliers on their toes (and keep pricing and licensing sensible)
[Confession: at home, we have onely one Office license, I gave that to my wife; I have Open Office on my personal machine. It does what it needs to.]
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
December 27, 2005 at 8:17 am
If the tool works for your specific environment and you have the personnel to run it, that's probably the right tool to use.
MySQL, DB2, Oracle, SQL Server, VB, C++, Java?
What-ever!!!
December 27, 2005 at 9:01 am
I agree with the right tool for the job. The problem with articles like this is that they present themselves as balanced and they are not. And that's poor when you're writing for beginners.
If you want to educate people, do that, but keep a reign on your prejudices.
December 27, 2005 at 10:07 am
Precisely. Brainwashing the neophytes is probably not the most ethical of approaches.
Active Directory and Exchange server are based on Access (well, JET). SQL Express certainly is not.
But then, it is folly to expect a fair shake on Slashdot. Still fun to watch, bet never, ever troll there. ever.
jg
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply