Please post the advantages and disadvantages of each server software in terms of features and performance for ecommerce web sites

anybody?

MS SQL supports foreign keys, MySQL does not.

MySQL is extremely fast and has a relatively small footprint whereas MS SQL is big and not as fast until you reach a certain size in which MS SQL outperforms MySQL.

MS SQL supports stored procedures (actually I think mySQL version 4 does as well but it's not final yet). MS SQL supports natural language queries which are fantastic!

MS SQL is designed for large databases... when I say large I mean 60 million record type databases. Of course if you're not load balancing a 60 million record database it isn't going to be very fast!

Comparing PHP to ASP, basically what is the point where ASP and MS SQL push ahead for better performance?

Free :D

That's enough reasons for me...

$200 versus over $7000 kind of skews the comparison in favor of MySQL.

Originally posted by hostpath.com
$200 versus over $7000 kind of skews the comparison in favor of MySQL.

Where'd you get $200 from?

It cost me nothing (aside from hardware costs) to set-up my SQL server :D

Download the latest ISO of your favorite Linux flavor
Download MySQL
Download PHP (if it's a webserver as well)
Download Apache (ditto from above)


Install... Done..

Originally posted by Studio64
Where'd you get $200 from?
If you're going to use the software profesionally MySQL does request that you pay for a license. These guys earn their living off a technology that most of us use for free, it's nice to give back when we can. :)

Sincerely,

-Matt

I am installing MS SQL and MS server 2000 with 25 user CAL.

It cost me about $3500 for the MS SQL and $1200 for server with 25 CAL. I also had to get a server to handle it which was about $8000 all said and done with.

I love MySQL and I believe in giving back to the boys/girls who have contribute in writing the software.

Why does MS handle data better then MySQL on smaller databases and then out grows it on larger databases?

That's something I would like to know...

Well i think i am going to keep my 8000 dollars and go with mysql and php.

Yeah, no point in spending 8000 yoohoos. I find theres tons of free support for mysql all over the net when you get stuck compared to MS SQL........... and more less so, mysql people seem to be more helpful and nicer too...... compared tooo......(no comment) ha

Originally posted by RackNine

If you're going to use the software profesionally MySQL does request that you pay for a license. These guys earn their living off a technology that most of us use for free, it's nice to give back when we can. :)

Sincerely,

-Matt

For internet server use it's basically free of charge:

http://www.mysql.com/support/arrangements.html

Quote from the above page:

"As long as you never distribute (internally or externally) the MySQL Software in any way, you are free to use it for powering your application, irrespective of whether your application is under GPL or other OSI approved license or not."

Originally posted by goodness0001
Well i think i am going to keep my 8000 dollars and go with mysql and php.

If the server is going to be used on the Internet then you'll need a per-CPU licence (or Internet Connector Licence as it was known for SQL v7.0) which is more expensive I believe.

Running a hosting service with SQL Server 2000 is an expensive business!!!

Originally posted by jtrovato

Why does MS handle data better then MySQL on smaller databases and then out grows it on larger databases?

That's something I would like to know...

Without getting into the actual specifics it boils down to a simple phrase. MSSQL is bloatware...

MS's DB software is extremly roboust, quite frankly too much for small data amounts. It's like using commerical mining equipment for your home garden. It's just simply faster to use a shovel.

MySQL handles small sets of data (small meaning under 40,000 records) extremly well because it's built to be very thin and fast. After that threshold you have the option of either going to MS or you can always load balance the DB or change versions.

There are some good articles to be found on Google that are a heck of alot more in depth than that.

Have you ever tried running a fully normalised database with over 1/2 million records per table on mySQL... not exactly fast.

But MS SQL and Oracle can happily cope and even better when you write stored proceedures for them in something pl/sql

I think it's unfair to compare the two... MySQL is not in the same league as SQL Server for functionality for a start. SQL Server competes with Oracle, DB2 etc. possibly even PostgresSQL.

MySQL is accessible to end users in the same way Access is... and we all know which is better as a web site back end database.

I think a mySQL and MS Access comparison would be better. My opinion.

The only advantage for Access is that it's already one most peoples desktop machines. Tell users to use it for their client information then tell them it can be used directly to drive their web site - it's a dream come true.

If it came down to a choice between MS SQL and MySQL there is no competition - MS SQL. MySQL is a great database server, but it can't compete on performance or features for enterprise-based applications. MS SQL has too many advantages (except price) over MySQL if you work with DB's for a living.

However, when it comes to a choice between MySQL and Access then there really isn't a choice to be made. MySQL..all the time.

MySQL is a real DB server, MS Access is a desktop database that shouldn't be used on a busy internet site that requires a DB backend.

What about PostgresSQL?

I've never used either M$ SQL, or PostgresSQL, so out of these two, which wins?

I've heard only good things about Postgres, more than can be said about M$ :P

Agreed on Access not being as good as mySQL.

IMHO MS SQL beats all of them these days. I use Oracle and MS SQL regularly and a few years ago I would have said Oracle but not with SQL Server 2000.

The natural language queries are just sooo cool.

How about someone making a comparison between:

postgresql and mysql

postgresql and ms sql


It seems to me that ms sql and oracle and db2 are for pushing very large databases (millions of records)

postgresql is between ms sql category and mysql

Mysql is a quick database but suffers when processing millions of records

Someone please comment further or correct me.

Foreign keys imho being one of the major pluses for MsSQL, it allows you to keep an amazing amount of normalized data, without data redundancy using those keys. And the stored procedures help to ensure the databases integrity isn't put into compromise by poor inserts or that the sensative data in the tables isnt viewed by people you don't want to see. Hell with views they dont even have to see the structure of the database, wich for someone with any DBA background is great because the less a end-user knows about the database, the closer you are to locking down that data and completely securing it. MsSQL also has the transaction log, and an absolutely more than comprehensive system for backing up the database to the very second. What amazed me when I was in my MsSQL classes was that if you were working as a DBA on MsSQL and you came into the office one morning to find the database had died, if you had a proper backup plan implemented you could restore the database to the very second before it died. I believe MsSQL 2k has integrated XML support now, and like said before the natural language queries are awesome !

I'm one test away from obtaining my MCDBA (the design test ... pray for me lol) and I fell in love with databases when I began working with them. Ultimately I would like to work with Oracle as I see it more of a standard at the moment (although who knows, that may be subject to change if 9i doesnt work out to well)

But as said before, MySQL will run you alot faster for smaller databases. Most small to medium companies would be fine with storing their data on MySQL but if its sensative information, I would trust it only with MsSQL

comparing all the options ms sql certainly isnt the most cost effective method unless you have a lot of money to throw around

Originally posted by goodness0001
How about someone making a comparison between:

postgresql and mysql

postgresql and ms sql


It seems to me that ms sql and oracle and db2 are for pushing very large databases (millions of records)

postgresql is between ms sql category and mysql

Mysql is a quick database but suffers when processing millions of records

Someone please comment further or correct me.

Good article on MySQL vs. PostgreSQL over at PHPBuilder.com (http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3)

Originally posted by goodness0001
comparing all the options ms sql certainly isnt the most cost effective method unless you have a lot of money to throw around

It's cheaper than Oracle. However it's using the right tool for the right job.

Don't expect to run a search engine on mySQL... rather ms sql, oracle or another big DB.