December 30, 2010 at 8:19 am
This question must have been already asked hundred times, but maybe somebody, who tried both can give some sort of comparison. I am using MySQL right now and I had used SQL Server long time ago, and I know that MySQL had come a long way in terms of functionality and relational tables features. Now obviously there is a question of brute force, SQL Server can possibly handle more records and go distributed. Where are the limits?
December 30, 2010 at 9:39 am
You can get the maximum capacities for SQL Server here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
For MySQL, I assume you have some documentation somewhere that will show you.
December 30, 2010 at 10:31 am
I Binged "MySQL vs MS SQL" and got some good articles on the subject, including a pretty balanced one from one of MySQL's lead people.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 4, 2011 at 4:27 am
For those who like that type of stuff, there is an excelent video on YouTube: "Supersymmetry, Extra Dimensions and the Origin of Mass", which covers a lecture on how they handle gigantic amounts of data that Large Hadron Colider (LHC) produces. They do use relational databases and host data in many data centers all around the world.
Now, the bright point comes to when the the lecturer, prof. Marjorie Shapiro from Berkley, comes to say which database they use for this task. Effectively she said that funding agency bent their arm to use Oracle, on the grounds that it will work better because it is paid for. While she hints that Oracle is huge hussle and that LHC consortium would be better of with MySQL.
January 4, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Keep
It
Sql
Server
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
January 4, 2011 at 2:06 pm
One of the comparisons I found, http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/move_from_microsoft_SQL_Server.html, by MySQL's Dir Product Mgmt, is pretty fair about the comparison. He admits there are features MySQL doesn't have and won't have soon, that MS SQL does have. Of course, it's weighted in terms of MySQL being either better or at least "good enough for most", but it's pretty fair about it.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 5, 2011 at 7:31 am
I dunno, I thought that he was deliberately missing stuff out. For instance, if you want a fully-featured Enterprise Edition of SQL Server to run on Windows XP, you can get the Developer edition for very little (albeit MySQL is free :-)), and it's not difficult to run multiple different SQL versions on the same machine either--we have at least one test server here that's running SQL 2005 and SQL 2008 R2 alongside each other!
January 5, 2011 at 7:34 am
He does mention that the list of things SQL Server will do that MySQL won't is too large for an article of that scope. I just kind of lumped all that together into that statement.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 5, 2011 at 7:37 am
Yes, but my point was that he made a point about him liking the ability to install MySQL on his XP machine and have multiple different versions installed at the same time, *as if* those are things you can't do in SQL Server!
January 5, 2011 at 8:31 am
GSquared (1/4/2011)
One of the comparisons I found, http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/move_from_microsoft_SQL_Server.html, by MySQL's Dir Product Mgmt, is pretty fair about the comparison. He admits there are features MySQL doesn't have and won't have soon, that MS SQL does have. Of course, it's weighted in terms of MySQL being either better or at least "good enough for most", but it's pretty fair about it.
This is (IMO) a very fair comparison. In contrast, look at Microsoft's at http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-mysql.aspx
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
January 5, 2011 at 9:21 am
WayneS (1/5/2011)
GSquared (1/4/2011)
One of the comparisons I found, http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/move_from_microsoft_SQL_Server.html, by MySQL's Dir Product Mgmt, is pretty fair about the comparison. He admits there are features MySQL doesn't have and won't have soon, that MS SQL does have. Of course, it's weighted in terms of MySQL being either better or at least "good enough for most", but it's pretty fair about it.This is (IMO) a very fair comparison. In contrast, look at Microsoft's at http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-mysql.aspx
Yeah, I looked at that too. It's almost useless. And the UI is very poorly designed.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 5, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Pete23Mid (12/30/2010)
This question must have been already asked hundred times, but maybe somebody, who tried both can give some sort of comparison. I am using MySQL right now and I had used SQL Server long time ago, and I know that MySQL had come a long way in terms of functionality and relational tables features. Now obviously there is a question of brute force, SQL Server can possibly handle more records and go distributed. Where are the limits?
Comparing MySQL to SQL Server is like comparing an apple to a mixed basket of fruit, because there are several editions of SQL Server with strategically tierd capacities and licensing.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/editions.aspx
If licensing cost is an issue, then keep in mind that the only free option for SQL Server, Express edition, is limited to 1 CPU, 1 GB RAM, and 10 GB for each database. That won't stack up to MySQL for the same money.
The Developer Edition comes bundled with MSDN or cost about $100 standalone. It has the same capacity and scalability as Enterprise edition, *but* it supports only a single connection and the license agreement forbids usage in a production environment. If the real issue for your project going forward is scalabilty, then consider going with SQL Server Standard or Enterprise edition.
One other thing to consider, and you probably know more about this than me, but Oracle now owns MySQL after it's purchase of Sun Micro back a couple of years ago. Oracle of course has their own line of database products, including a free Express edition in addition to Standard and Enterprise. They have already jacked up the price for their vendor MySQL support options recently, about doubled it, which makes it a less attractive option when compared or Oracle or SQL Server in that regard.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/03/oracle_mysql_price_hike/
So, it makes me wonder if research and development into future versions of MySQL will be kept on a short leash. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, because I'm outside the MySQL community loop, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply