Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install
versions, no tweaking.

The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than
MS SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.

So, we'll be going with MySQL. It is also to not pay money to anyone,
and to get a full version and not some bastardized "evaluation"
server.

i

Out of interest , what amount of data did you use? also, how did you measure
the speed on the mySQL?
I'm interested in this process, as I'm just about to start evaluating .


----
Jack Vamvas

"Ignoramus7272" <ignoramus7272 (AT) NOSPAM (DOT) 7272.invalid> wrote

Brilliant. What table type?

What version of MySQL?

What version of MS SQL Server?

How much data?

What kind of indices, if at all, did you use?

How many concurrent inserts did you try?

How many concurrent selects did you try?

In short: what kind of test did you actually run in order to make
such a statement?


--
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:17:27 +0000, Ignoramus7272 wrote:

Version 4 or 5 of MySQL? You are sure you don't need transactions?

I've seen way to many programmers not thinking about database concurrency
resulting in corrupted databases. If MySQL cuts it (it does for most of my
applications), fine. However, if you need a true database, the tables turn
(pun intended).

HTH,
M4
--
Redundancy is a great way to introduce more single points of failure.

Martijn Lievaart wrote:
MySQL can do transactions just fine if you use innodb tables. No
problem at all.

Of course MSSQL has other features, but MySQL is rapidly catching up.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex (AT) attglobal (DOT) net
==================

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:27:01 +0100, Jack Vamvas <DEL_TO_REPLYtechsupport (AT) ciquery (DOT) com> wrote:
a few tens/hundreds of thousands of records, a few thousands of
selects with all diferent keys, that's all I know. I am aware that
people can argue forever about what constitutes the most refined test,
and that perhaps ours was not that.

i

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:20:54 +0200, Martijn Tonies <m.tonies (AT) upscene (DOT) removethis.com> wrote:
MyISAM

MySQL 5

MS SQL Express '05, if I have that right.

About 100k records in various tables (about wehat we need)

Whatever was appropriate for the selects


no idea, we do not do concurrent statements in practice.

A bunch of selects and inserts, similar to what we need.

i

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 21:02:30 +0200, Martijn Lievaart <m (AT) remove (DOT) this.part.rtij.nl> wrote:
5.

Well, though we do not do any concurrent statements due to our system
design, I thought tat MySQL 5 covers concurrency just fine, no?

i