MYSQL vs SQL 2000

  • Does anybody know where I can get some benchmarks comparing MySql to Sql 2000?  The company I work for wants to rewrite our system using MySql (since it's free) instead of upgrading from SQL 7.0 to 2000.  I say it will be a performance issue and they're only interested in cost.

  • It is not true that SQL Server 2000 is better than MySQL version 4.1 or vice versa. Both products can be used to build stable and efficient systems and the stability and effectiveness of your applications and databases depends upon the experience of the database developers and database administrator rather than the database's provider. However, SQL Server 2000 has some advantages in comparison with MySQL version 4.1 and vice versa.

    General Advantavges

    The SQL Server 2000 advantages:

    * SQL Server 2000 holds the top TPC-C performance and price/performance results.

    * SQL Server 2000 is generally accepted as easier to install, use and manage.

    * Transact-SQL is a more powerful language than MySQL dialect.

    The MySQL version 4.1 advantages:

    * MySQL version 4.1 supports all known platforms, not only the Windows-based platforms.

    * MySQL version 4.1 requires less hardware resources.

    * You can use MySQL version 4.1 without any payment under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

    look following links for more details

    http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3087841

    http://builder.com.com/5100-6388-1054385.html

  • MSDE i also free. Maybe an alternative.

    /rockmoose


    You must unlearn what You have learnt

  • MySQL is a database that is very good at pumping out information at a very fast rate of knots especially for web-site deployment.

    I have some concerns with its ability to cope with large multi-user environments.  I am also not that happy with its back-up routines.

    I believe version 5 will have stored procedures, but prior to this you are going to have to run dynamic SQL.

    The choice of MySQL vs SQL Server, or any other RDBMS needs to be driven by function rather than price.

    There is an old saying about a rich man spending less on shoes than a poor man because a poor man can only afford cheap shoes and so spends his time replacing them.  A rich man buys decent shoes in the first place and occassionally has to pay for repairs.

  • Hi there

    I agree with David, its all about functionality, what features do you use and how confident are you with the move both technically (the migration) and operationally (ongoing support, maintenance).  You may need to whip up a method of modelling the real value or cost of the mode, listing core technical and business functions (what you have and hope to gain) with a metric along side.  Just an idea.  Either way, I highly recommend you show a documented and managed approach to the decision making process.

    As for stats, I have seen none to date worth their weight.  There are a few side by side functional comparisions but thats about it.

    Funny enough, I am looking at MSSQL myself.  First impressions - give me a mature management tool!!! the bundled and freebies on the market are terrible.

    Cheers

    Ck


    Chris Kempster
    www.chriskempster.com
    Author of "SQL Server Backup, Recovery & Troubleshooting"
    Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA"

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply