Other databases
-
hi frank, yeah lots of things are slated for mysql v5..
what I find really amusing is how its champions quote how FAST it can do a select * on a table (really all mysql is good for)...
so will be interesting to see how 'slow' it becomes when they start adding triggers and all other useful things...
-Stu
-
Hi Stuart,
as I wrote before. It depends on your needs. If you are running a private homepage on the web, you rarely do more than a SELECT * from .... So for that MySQL is great. Maybe version 5 of MySQL will be slow because of the new features. But as with MS two versions later it should be quite acceptable
If it comes to complex or mission-critical application I definitely would favour a product like SQL Server. No doubt about it!!!
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
I've used FileMakerPro on Mac & PC, Oracle on PC and Unix, Sybase, Access, SQL Server, 4th Dimension (more of an integrated gui/db). I've always wanted to look at MySQL but have never made the time. Like someone else mentioned, I've used Access to front end other databases, mainly Sybase. This was a result of the Access db not being stable enough and so it was ported over to Sybase with the forms still in Access. I actually prefer using ASP to front end my databases as opposed to Access.
My current duties have me working with Sybase and MS SQL Server. I still like Sybase but my preference is for MS SQL Server given the various GUIs available for managing it and I also like how it really ties into the Windows OS, allowing for the ability to do a lot more back office related tasks.
Jeff
-
quote:
look at MySQL but have never made the time. Like someone else mentioned, I've used Access to front end other databases, mainly Sybase. I actually prefer using ASP to front end my databases as opposed to Access.Oops, my mistake. With front-end I meant for work with the data. The GUI stuff is also ASP
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
I noticed that no one has used Lotus Notes.
For some types of applications it would kick SQL's ass the same way SQL does to Access. I particularly dislike Access and also find that a VB frontend using ADO is better than Access. Besides theses I have also used Cache' and looking into MySQL as a satelite data server for specific long running applications.
-
I've used Notes. It is more of a document management system that an RDBMS.
If you are storing documents then, obviously Notes is the way to go. Incidently I know someone who has a Notes front end to a SQL database.
The only thing I have against Access is that it can cause locking problems when used as a front end to a server database.
Basically I've used most PC databases since dBASE II/Clipper and one or two old mainframe hierarchal databases.
Moving up to server databases has been a revelation.
MySQL has its fans though personally I suspect the MySQL vs other open source databases is the VHS vs Betamax thing again.
-
quote:
MySQL has its fans though personally I suspect the MySQL vs other open source databases is the VHS vs Betamax thing again....and then there were Picture Discs, and now we have DVD
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
quote:
I'm mainly a MS SQL Server guy, but I toyed around a bit with a pretty interesting databse called Caché from Intersystems. Runs on Unix, Linux or Windows, is really easy for webapplication development and has some interesting features. There's a free download available on their site.http://www.intersystems.com/cache/cache5/
Looked at it. What does the term postrelational mean ? SQL has analysis services to do this but not at real time
-sk
-
We have one old application that uses SQLBase. The guy who wrote it (Gupta) use to work at Oracle, so if you love Oracle, then you would probably like SQLBase.
Fortunately, the application is small, so no admin headaches. SQLBase seems stable, its been around since mid '80's. But it does have all the oracle baggage, like cursors everywhere, and core table dumps just to rebuild a clustered index.
When is mysql v5 due out?
What's the business problem you're trying to solve? -
quote:
When is mysql v5 due out?I think at this moment nobody really knows this. Production version is 4.0.12, alpha version 4.1 ???. You should check their website or subscribe to their mailing lists.
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
Hi,
I just received a mail from SQLProNews praising a DB called Matisse as the ultimate db for .net. Anyone heard of this before?
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
I know this is an older thread but had to revive it just to put in my two cents. I personally work with MSSQL 7/2000, Sybase 12(no me gusto mucho
), Pervasive SQL 2000 along with an oder DOS based BTrieve database and some Access. We also have Oracle (1 app, 3 DBA's - go figure) in house and possibly a couple of others hiding somewhere.I may be showing my age, but anybody ever hear of an old product called Alpha 3 which later became Alpha 4? It was late 80's or so...pretty robust for its day, although I don't know if it was that scalable. Back before I got into IT full time, I developed an inventory management database in a clinical setting using Alpha 4 and found it pretty powerful and user friendly for its day. Saved me a lot of time anyway, and it sort of helped me get started in my first IT job.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
-
quote:
I know this is an older thread but had to revive it just to put in my two cents. I personally work with MSSQL 7/2000, Sybase 12(no me gusto mucho), Pervasive SQL 2000 along with an oder DOS based BTrieve database and some Access. We also have Oracle (1 app, 3 DBA's - go figure) in house and possibly a couple of others hiding somewhere.I may be showing my age, but anybody ever hear of an old product called Alpha 3 which later became Alpha 4? It was late 80's or so...pretty robust for its day, although I don't know if it was that scalable. Back before I got into IT full time, I developed an inventory management database in a clinical setting using Alpha 4 and found it pretty powerful and user friendly for its day. Saved me a lot of time anyway, and it sort of helped me get started in my first IT job.
Guess what...
They are still around, check http://www.alphasoftware.com/
-
quote:
quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm mainly a MS SQL Server guy, but I toyed around a bit with a pretty interesting databse called Caché from Intersystems. Runs on Unix, Linux or Windows, is really easy for webapplication development and has some interesting features. There's a free download available on their site.
http://www.intersystems.com/cache/cache5/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looked at it. What does the term postrelational mean ? SQL has analysis services to do this but not at real time
-sk
I think they call it postrelational because they use an object oriented data model instead of the classic relational model.
[font="Verdana"]Markus Bohse[/font]
-
Well, shoot, if we're going into archaeology, then I bet there are some other old-timers out there who still remember IDMS and Model 204. I'm guessing they must still be alive somewhere, but back in the 1980s they were all the rage. For a while.
I don't think the youngsters in this profession, as a general rule, appreciate how relational databases have leveraged the nothing-short-of-phenomenal improvements in computer hardware over the last twenty-five years. The earliest attempts at relational database hit these enormous walls of relatively sluggish performance, and it was not a guaranteed thing that -- as conceptually elegant as they may have been -- they would capture the market. Without the improvements in hardware performance, my guess is that other types of databases would have stuck around a lot longer.
I cut my teeth on Cullinet's IDMS, which in the early 1980s was the premier database for IBM mainframes. It was not a 'relational' database in the strictest sense; its architecture made it what we used to call a 'network' database. That is, rows could contain embedded pointers to the 'next' or 'prior' row in a set. Performance could be maximized by storing, say, a 'parent' row at a random page-address, and all the 'children' rows could be grouped around it on the same page. It was clumsy by modern standards and could best be handled through COBOL programs, but at the time it kicked IMS's butt. (IMS was a strictly hierarchical database from IBM.) IBM came back fighting with DB2, though, and eventually that product won the market. Cullinet was bought out by Computer Associates -- software's great bottom-feeder -- and I bet it still lives in legacy systems here and there.
Model 204 had a small but loyal following. It had its own 'user' language, which was vastly more ergonomic than COBOL, but still primitive compared to SQL. The intelligence community loved it because it supported something they called "proximity" searches -- the ability to query text and juxtapositions of words. Architecturally, it was what the old hacks call an 'inverted file structure', basically a series of indexes and bit maps pointing into a large barrel of data. It was great for retrieval but lousy at OLTP. I'd heard that Australia used it for their social security system, and liked it, but updates were run batch-style at night; during the day, just reporting.
), Pervasive SQL 2000 along with an oder DOS based BTrieve database and some Access. We also have Oracle (1 app, 3 DBA's - go figure) in house and possibly a couple of others hiding somewhere.Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply