[thelist] SQL Server 2000 or mySQL?

:: kevination :: simplecypher at bitshift.ws
Tue Jul 16 10:29:01 CDT 2002


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kogler" <ken.kogler at cph.org>
> Is SQL Server 2000 really worth the money, or is mySQL running on
Win2K a
> reasonable alternative (especially given it's price)?
- ----- Original Message -----

Most commercial RDBMS' have loads of features beyond what mySQL
offers. In my experience though unless the developer is a really,
really sharp database guy most of those features are never touched.
Frankly, mySQL also has way more capabilities than most people
realize or use as well.

mySQL is ideal for simple data models that are read frequently and
change rarely. Also, you need to be comfortable with the complete
lack of foreign key constraints. I don't agree with the justification
put forth by the mySQL team (paraphrase : most developers haven't a
clue how to properly implement foreign keys) but the statement is
correct. I've had to untangle way too many data-models that were
littered with foreign keys. Hell, I still have to double-check my
logic and I've been developing databases for 5 years! Besides, any
database commercial or free will run faster if you ditch all the
foreign key constraints. So if referential integrity is no big deal,
mySQL is ideal.

Finally, most of the admin tools available for mySQL suck rocks when
compared with what comes with commercial RDBMS'. I'd kill for a mySQL
toolset as good as the one that comes with MSSQL2K. For general admin
of mySQL I use Mascon and curse it every chance I get. PHPmyAdmin is
usable as well but not great.

- ----- Original Message -----
> SQL is SQL, so I shouldn't have to worry about changing my code if
I switch
> to mySQL, right? I don't think I'm using MS-proprietary SQL in
anything...
- ----- Original Message -----

Only if you just want to write SQL on paper. Every database out there
has their own alomst-standard SQL implementation. Partly this is
because the true ANSI-SQL standard is a real serious bitch to
implement faithfully. At least that's the answer I always get from
the server developers. It's also partly market forces, each
development team is under pressure to differentiate their product
from the competition.

Different SQL implementations are only a real problem when you are
trying to migrate from one database platform to another. Or when you
are trying to convince a potential employer that your Oracle
experience really does qualify you for that DB2 job. Don't just do a
SQL dump from one and try to import. Use the migration as an
opportunity to review your data model and make sure it makes sense
for your new platform.

_____________
    :
    : kevin D. white
    :  im    simplecypher
    :  email simplecypher at bitshift.ws
    :_____________________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) - GPGOE 0.4.1
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
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=XADP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





More information about the thelist mailing list