November 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I apologise for posting this on a SQL Server forum, but I need some honest opinions on MySQL compared to SQL Server 2000/2005.
I've been reading articles on SQL Server 2005 for as long as i can remember and have been job hunting of late and have been offered a position with a company that uses MySQL. I know next to nothing about MySQL, but i've been studying for SQL Server 2005 MCITP for the past month and i'm loathed to leave SQL Server behind (primarily for career progression reasons and much as not wanting to jump from MS SQL Server to what i see as a lesser RDBMS) as maybe from using SQL Server 2000 for 4+ years and more recently SQL Server 2005 I have come to see it as a system that is being developed more and more, integrates nicely through Visual Studio 2005 with VB2005, and is a more used database system.
If anyone has experience of using MySQL as well as SQL Server I would much appreciate some advice.
November 2, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I think you would be unhappy... unless there's a pot wad of extra money involved... in which case, you'll still be unhappy but more satisfied 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 3, 2007 at 7:22 am
I'll give the standard answer: it really depends on the position.
With that said, there are inherent differences between the two RDBMSes. Some of your knowledge from SQL Server is applicable (SQL, considerations for how to recover, etc.) but a lot of it is not. For instance, you'll have to learn new tools, get used to a difference set of proprietary commands (show *, describe, etc., as opposed to DBCC and the like), handle different engines (as MySQL is compatible with any engine that can plug into is APIs making for a potentially diverse mix). MySQL is a different skill set in much the same way Oracle is. MySQL is used by major companies like Google (who has signed a collaborative agreement to infuse code into MySQL), so if your concern is over whether or not this is applicable for future career advancement, in general it is. You may have to take the opportunities in your local area into consideration, however.
I enjoy working with both MySQL and SQL Server myself. While my MySQL skills are nowhere near my SQL Server level, if I were looking for a position, I would seriously consider a MySQL job if offered one. But that's my two cents.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
November 5, 2007 at 9:48 am
it's simple
SQL 2005 and Oracle are real db servers and MySQL is not. i was helping our devs with it on some webserver a few months back and there is no online backup option.
November 5, 2007 at 6:39 pm
No offense, but I think Google and LiveJournal would disagree with you on whether or not MySQL is a real database platform. I remember when LiveJournal recovered from database crashes due to power outages at their data center. I may be heavily biased towards SQL Server, but MySQL certainly has its place in the enterprise.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
November 5, 2007 at 11:57 pm
I'm going to go with Brian on this one - MySQL is a serious contender in the database space that will only get better with time and depending on your needs it may actually be better than SQL Server (or Oracle for that matter) in the right/certain circumstances.
I'm also of the opinion that the argument for/against a specific operating system, application, database, etc. is largely a matter of experience and available support. For good or bad, any operating system, application, database server, etc. is usually only as good as the people running it and the proper selection of the appropriate operating system, application, database server, etc. by individuals with the proper skills to evaluate and then select the approprate tools.
Find the toolset that works for you and see where it takes you.
Joe
November 6, 2007 at 7:28 am
Thanks for all your advice and comments on MySQL. I've never looked at it before and i am still a little scpetical about jumping ship from SQL Server 2005, but i may just take the opportunity. If i don't like working with it then i have at least not lost anything and the experience of another database system may actually widen my skillset.
When I wrote this all i knew of MySQL was that it was an opensource RDBMS, which immediately made me think that it was 2nd rate and probably backwards compared to SQL Server. Maybe it is in some ways, maybe it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, or maybe it isn't as good performancewise, but i think it is better than i gave it credit for.
Thanks for all the advice. Feel free to add if there is anything more to say on the matter,
Matt
November 6, 2007 at 7:41 am
for all the enterprise applications, MySQL has a lot of other software behind it to be highly available. M is only one letter in LAMPS
November 6, 2007 at 8:04 am
I use both in my current job. Mysql if fast and I use it for web applications, and our CRM and CMS which are both Open Source products. We use SQL server for our ERP. I routinely write code for both, respect both, and look at it from the point of view that they are choices. Along with Oracle, each has strength and weaknesses.
As far as career path, are you generally more comfortable with windows or linux? Although mysql runs fine on Windows, the trend is fairly universal. If you have (or are getting) an MCSE, don't waste your time with mysql unless you want to work in a mixed environment. MCSE's are too expensive to give up on.
and to the previous poster - yes mysql is a "real" database.
November 6, 2007 at 8:13 am
MSSQL needs a federated design like Oracle and MySQL where you use a bunch of cheapo boxes and don't need MSCS clusters. if one fails you simply reroll and replace it
November 6, 2007 at 10:03 am
SQL Noob (11/6/2007)
MSSQL needs a federated design like Oracle and MySQL where you use a bunch of cheapo boxes and don't need MSCS clusters. if one fails you simply reroll and replace it
You mean like database mirroring, log shipping, and replication? This article might be of interest to you:
Inside Microsoft.com: Managing SQL Server 2005 Peer-to-Peer Replication[/url]
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
November 6, 2007 at 10:15 am
no, MSSQL should be like MySQL in that i can buy 10 or so HP DL 360's, set them up and run one instance of SQL across them. if one dies for whatever reason i take it out, reroll it and replace it and don't lose any sleep or worry about changes to my replication or whatever topology
if my data grows 50% in 6 months i should just buy a few more DL 360's and add them to the existing cluster to take up the slack and not worry about buying a new SAN, upgrading to new hardware that may cost ridiculous amounts of money, etc.
MS Clustering is OK but it still means a few seconds of downtime and application restarts for us. with LAMPS if a box dies you replace it and there is less downtime
i don't want to spend money on hardware that is simply going to sit around and be used in production 1% of the time during a problem, i don't want to worry about having to restore a db in a remote site to recreate log shipping or db mirroring. i want to have a 10 or 20 node cluster of cheap hardware where if one server fails i just fix it and stick back in and not have to have double hardware just to wait for a problem
November 6, 2007 at 10:41 am
I have to say I have worked with Oracle, 7 and up, SQL Server 6.5 and up, DB2, Sybase SQL Server, MySQL, and a few other lesser ones. All do a great jobs but for many corporations it is the price point that they make a decision on a particular one or their environment. Many companies choose MySQL over MS SQL because 1 they don't realize for commercial purposes they have to license it assuming that opensource means they can just use it, or 2 because they want to use Linux or some other OS for their server environment as they don't want to be an MS flunky (perception of to them). Each has it's place but when I last looked at MySQL there were still some scalability issues for a single server (granted Google uses but they have I am sure multiple servers, but that relationship may have also improved the product since I last touched). My choice of SQL Server is because of the environment I am in, the toolsets with SQL, the programming framework I use, the cost to my customers, the scalability for the cost, the featureset of SQL (SSIS, SQL, AS, RS and all) for the cost, and because I am most familiar with how it works and how to work with it. That said, take any job you get offered, you are not required to stay but every experience will go a long way in the future, and along the way you may find you like a different direction that you first realized.
November 7, 2007 at 3:12 am
I am a developer so from a point of view of how the servers are set up i haven't really been factoring it into my consideration. Apart from the fact that i am curious and do like to know the infrastructure considerations of different database systems.
I have recently started thinking of training for MCITP SQL Server Developer and have the MCTS Exam 70-431 training kit book and was only really looking for SQL Server jobs (if I'm being honest) and went down the interview path with a fairly non technical recruitment consultant and had an 1st interview with a non technical guy (boss of the technical manager) and only at the 2nd interview was i told they used MySQL and not SQL Server. The comapny and job isn't a bad one and i'm not the sort of person to storm out of an interview and dismiss this opportunity out of hand. There are more than technical considerations as well. The company has a great client list, is very respected (and almost turning away business due to not having enough technical people), and i get the feeling there is the opportunity to make a difference there (the complete opposite to where i last worked where you were one in many and however good you were at your job you didn't get recognised for that effort. The pay is better too, which also helps open my eyes to this :). If it was a straight choice on the technical side of things i'd probably not be as interested.
I feel that losing the day to day use of MS SQL Server will almost make getting certified in it a waste of time, as i don't know when i'd ever use it again in a work environment (by which time SQL Server 2008 or later may be the norm), and obviously I would not have the SSIS, SSAS, SSRS tools that are now a big part of MS SQL Server.
I get the feeling that the company probably uses MySQL due to cost and it does all they need to. Having made the decision it would cost time and effort changing (even if they wanted to). The Microsoft consideration or even the servers they had when making the decision (non-MS) may have come into it, i don't know, but i'd think the biggest factor would have been cost.
Any comments on this is good, whether it is about clustering, or just general comments.
November 7, 2007 at 7:13 am
If you still have the time and the resources, getting certified in SQL Server is not a bad idea. You never know what tomorrow will bring. Case in point, a company here in my town that was heavily into sub-prime lending went under. That company promised the employees who stayed to "close the doors" would receive several months severance, etc. But when the day came, the company said, "Sorry, we have no money left and we can't pay you." One of the people affected has attended our local PASS chapter meetings. Obviously, this has caused a great shake-up in this person's future plans.
Also, there are always volunteer opportunities and short consulting engagements you can take on with SQL Server. Having the skillset is only a bonus, even if you don't actively use it day-to-day.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply