Which database...

[gameslover987 at yahoo.com (Dave Peters)]

I have been using MS SQL, MySQL and Oracle very long
time. I am DBA.
It is very difficult to determine which is good or
bad. 
Here is my view:
1. For small database and limit budget: Mysql
2. Medium size database: MS SQL
3. For huge database: Oracle

-D

--- markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:

> > From: Kyle Plummer <kyle at breezy.com>
> >
> > Although not directly a linux question?  I have a
> client who is thinking
> > about using Oracle, IBM or MS SQL for a large DB
> project.  His question
> > to me is which is a more stable/reliable/scalable
> database?
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
> >
> > Kyle
> >
> 
> I've done a good number of database driven projects
> and it is a much more
> difficult question that you are thinking about.
> 
> Well, my first thought is to forget MS SQL, while
> the engineering version
> is free, they'll get you if you want to do anything
> interesting. Plus, MS
> SQL locks you into Windows and Windows just isn't
> stable enough, and
> requires a reboot -- i.e. the server has to be shut
> down and restarted --
> if you change certain system settings. Not
> acceptable for an enterprise
> database system.
> 
> Oracle is a great product but it has its own dialect
> of SQL that sort of
> locks you in. Since, however, it is the 800lb of the
> SQL market, it is
> probably a safe choice. Unfortunately, Oracle need
> more maintenence than a
> newborn. It is not a "set it and forget it" system.
> You have to constantly
> monitor and tune it. It also is very picky about
> "space" it has a few
> levels of indirection, which is flexable, but if you
> are not careful, you
> can be stuck with a situation where it looks like
> you have enough space,
> but Oracle doesn't think so and stops.
> 
> DB2 is a good system, but it is sort of a purist SQL
> database. I don't
> have too much experience with it.
> 
> MySQL is a joke, don't even consider it. It doesn't
> support enough "SQL"
> to write efficient queries. The speed claims come
> from simple "selects"
> and don't describe its misserable performance on
> database modifications.
> It scales very poorly if you actually modify the
> database. When you use
> the subsystems that offer better scalability, the
> performance goes to
> hell.
> 
> PostgreSQL is a very good system with a few caveates
> (1) You tend to have
> more inserts than updates and deletes. (2) You run
> "VACUUM" regularly.
> PostgreSQL has a very good MVCC design, and scales
> very well under high
> load.
> 
> Last time I looked, Sybase was pretty good, I
> haven't used it in a long
> time, but I hear they've improved it a lot.
> 
> 
> Oracle, DB2, Sybase, MS SQL, and PostgreSQL all
> scale well. My gut feeling
> says Oracle scales best on heavily modified
> databases. DB2 probably does
> the best job at query parsing and execution.
> PostgreSQL offers a good
> balance.
> 
> When setting up a system my strategy is to see if
> there are reasons why
> PostgreSQL won't suit the project (i.e. load, types
> of operations, ability
> to run VACUUM regularly, etc.). If PostgreSQL won't
> do it, I choose Oracle
> just because I know it better.
> 
> Don't discount "know it better" when it comes to
> databases. There are
> limitations in all the databases, some are really
> bad (MySQL), but most
> are workable if you know how to tune and operate
> them. All databases will
> have trade-offs, if you are working in a contentious
> environment, someone
> will always be able to find a reason why your choice
> was a mistake, just
> make sure *you* understand what the database can do
> and that it suits your
> application.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://olduvai.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html