I need to know which to use. MySQL or MS SQL 2000 1

[garymgordon]

Basically,

I am getting ready to create a potentially large website that will utilize various MS products such as Sharepoint, Digital Dashboards, etc.

Additionally, I will need to incorporate a RDBMS for other uses as well, which will include allowing users to edit content and have that information updated to the database in real time.

I also need to allow multiple users to access the same files (potentially) at one time and make changes, etc.

So, with that being said, I am trying to figure out whether MySQL would work ... or if I need (and should be using) MS SQL 2000?

I am not very familiar with this stuff, and would appreciate:

1) Some good and clear advice.
2) Information (that is easy to read) that would explain the pros and cons of both.

If anyone can help me understand what way I should go ... AND WHY ... I would greatly appreciate .

Thanks,
Gary
Gary M. Gordon, LLC
webmaster@garymgordon.com
Certified Web Developer ::
Application Programmer

http://www.garymgordon.com/

 

[wushutwist]

How about Oracle? That would be your best bet. If I had to choose between SQL Server and MySQL then I would probably go with SQL Server in your case.

Pros to MySQL:
It's free!
It's not MS! (even better than free)
Great Open-source community support.

Cons to MySQL:
Does not support Transactions fully (despite what people say I have yet to see transactions working in MySQL under Windows, work like a charm in Linux though).
Runs best on Linux but it sounds like you will be using all Microsoft products.
Harder to find developers and DBAs that work with MySQL.

============================================================

Pros to SQL Server:
Easy setup and administration. Easy to find developers and DBAs.
Microsoft product so in theory it will play nice with the rest of your stuff.
Easy to use in VB and ASP if those are your technologies.

Cons to SQL Server:
Costs a bundle. (Not as much as Oracle though)
Not a highly robust database (compared to Oracle).
It is a Microsoft product so you will need to patch it every other week for the latest security flaw.

Check out

http://www.searchdatabase.com

for more information on both. Wushutwist

 

[garymgordon]

That was great.

I especially liked the part of "It is a Microsoft product so you will need to patch it every other week for the latest security flaw."

Any other specifics would also be appreciated.

Such as .. I heard something regarding the fact that MySQL doesn't allow multi-users to access (in order to update and make changes to) the database - at one time, where MS SQL does. Is this true or can you explain this a little better for me.

And, is there any new and greater benefits with MS SQL 2000 over MS SQL 7??

Anything you can tell me would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,
Gary

)
Gary M. Gordon, LLC
webmaster@garymgordon.com
Certified Web Developer ::
Application Programmer

http://www.garymgordon.com/

 

[wushutwist]

I think the latest version of MySQL has Row Level Locking but you are right previous versions only supported Table Level Locking.

The difference between SQL Server 7 and 2000 is pretty much nil. The only thing I found useful about 2000 is the ability to use custom functions in T-SQL. This feature has been around for ages with Oracle. Hell, even Access let you do this as far back as Access 97 (maybe 95). Wushutwist

 

[garymgordon]

Wushutwist,

If you wouldn't mind ... and pardon my ignorance, but could you explain:

"I think the latest version of MySQL has Row Level Locking but you are right previous versions only supported Table Level Locking."

It sounded good. hahaha But, what is "Row Level Locking" and how does this work and effect what I was describing?

Thanks,
Gary
Gary M. Gordon, LLC
webmaster@garymgordon.com
Certified Web Developer ::
Application Programmer

http://www.garymgordon.com/

 

[wushutwist]

Row Level Locking is just what is sounds like. If I try to update a row in a database then the RDBMS should lock that row and not allow another user to change it until after I release the lock.

Table Level Locking means the entire table is locked from changes until the lock is released. MySQL used to use Table Level Locking on any insert, delete, or update. This means if I am just changing one row out of a million then nobody else could attempt to change any other row until I was finished. Obviously this is very bad form. Like I said, this limitation has been corrected in the newest version of MySQL.

Give MySQL another year or two and it is going to be a great database. Currently it is just not quite there yet. Wushutwist

 

[garymgordon]

So in your opinion, ... I should use MS SQL ? Is that a safer and more stable bet (if cost isn't an issue)?

Would you just confirm this.

Thanks again,
Gary
Gary M. Gordon, LLC
webmaster@garymgordon.com
Certified Web Developer ::
Application Programmer

http://www.garymgordon.com/

 

[wushutwist]

If cost is not an issue I would go with Oracle. If Oracle is too expensive (ie. cost is somewhat of an issue) I would go with SQL Server. Wushutwist

 

[garymgordon]

If I am asking to many questions, just stop me. hahahaha

But, .. what would the key benefits and reasons for me to use Oracle over SQL?

Gary
Gary M. Gordon, LLC
webmaster@garymgordon.com
Certified Web Developer ::
Application Programmer

http://www.garymgordon.com/

 

[fluteplr]

Reason to buy Oracle # 47B

You want to provide full employment for a DBA (database administrator) so they can twiddle all the Oracle setting every day to keep it running.

Not an Oracle fan as you can tell.

 

[wushutwist]

Basically SQL Server can't play ball in Large Database markets. It works great for small to medium sized applications though.

Try running SQL Server in a clustered paralleled method on huge server and make it reliable. Can SQL Server even do Parrallel Queries? Can SQL Server do off-site Standby Databases with automatic Fail-over? Can SQL Server support Terrabytes of information (I mean for REAL not what the white-paper says). Oracle has been running for years in this sort of fashion. Yeah Oracle Consultants are expensive but the alternative is that most SQL Server shops have the Network Administrator acting as their DBA. While this may be great for streamlining cost, what happens when the DB goes down, the NA doesn't know jack about databases.

Also SQL Server can only run on Windows. Don't get me started on simple OS reliablity. I will take a Sun Cluster running Oracle anyday over a Windows machine running SQL Server. Wushutwist

 

[garymgordon]

Wushutwist,

Well, I can see there are various benefits.

Thank you for the info. You have been a wonderful help.

))

Gary

REALLY GREAT!!! Thanks! Gary M. Gordon, LLC
webmaster@garymgordon.com
Certified Web Developer ::
Application Programmer

http://www.garymgordon.com/