Arrrrgggghhhhh here we go with the MySQL stuff again. Couple of references to refute the myths....
PERFORMANCE IS POOR? Let's start with the big eWeek article http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,293,00.asp, particularly the preformance comparison (summary: neck and neck with Oracle under heavy load; both better than the other 3) between Oracle, MySQL, MS-SQL, Sybase, and DB2. Particularly the graphs of performance, etc at this URL: http://www.eweek.com/slideshow/0,3018,sid=0&s=1590&a=23120,00.asp And while there are some issues with the methodology (eg MySQL AB sent engineers to help tune the db, a request that most of the other companies ignored), the comparison is pretty fair and they are pretty objective testers. NO ONE USES IT? Plenty of people run MySQL in a production environment. Here are a few *recent* examples from the MySQL AB homepage: MySQL's High Availability Works for Red One Aviation Cox Communications Powers Massive Data Warehouse with MySQL The AP Relies on MySQL for Transaction-Heavy News Delivery System Sterling Commerce Taps MySQL To Power Gentran Integration Suite For Global 5000 Companies MySQL and SGI Partner to Deliver High Performance Database Computing with MySQL on the SGI Altix 3000 Supercluster Dell Researchers Deem MySQL Replication Cluster Easy, Effective for High Volume Applications Danish Center for Biological Sequence Analysis Uses MySQL as Data Management Engine in Massive Supercomputer-Based Research Project Plus Yahoo is using it internally for many, many applications and rolling it out behind some of their new public applications (PHP and MySQL to be precise). Their PHP manager and I discussed it during my class on MySQL DataWarehousing at OSCON this year. Plenty of other corporations/groups were there rolling out MySQL apps. Columbia University. O'Reilly Publishing (big surprise), etc, etc. That said, I'm a hardcore MS-SQL server guy as well. I've been DBA for a company with 22+ servers in 4 countries. I've pushed it for a number of client projects. The argument in favor of MS-SQL Server has often been "It's like Oracle for most applications, but far cheaper" which is a fair statement. Same thing can be said of MySQL in many instances (not all, and there are certainly places to not use it) but the AP Newswire delivers (full text) content to 11,000 *concurrent* users with MySQL. SAP is putting the MySQL guys in charge of all future work/maintenance on their SAPDb product, which is no MaxDB for MySQL in marketing lingo. And plenty of open source applications come ready to use MySQL, which gets them in the enterprise as more and more "off-the-shelf" oss applications are used in corporations. MySQL came out of a data warehousing project -- and is very well suited to it (since transactions aren't a big deal in that world. The additional of InnoDB and BDB tables with transactional support (yes, they are ACID, just like MS-SQL and Oracle) provided the operational side of the house. To follow up on the original point in the post, it's not always "> If you are serious about performance be serious about using a dbms that can > cut it. Oracle, MSSQL and then maybe MySQL." if you believe eWeek, it's more like "Oracle/MySQL, then MS-SQL or DB2 or Sybase". And on a purely techical note, the JDBC driver for MySQL that Mark Matthews (now a MySQL employee) wrote *amazingly* fast. The MS-SQL JDBC driver (which MS licensed from DataDirect I've been led to understand) blows. Who cares which db is faster when you can't get the data back to the client efficiently (of course, you could always get JTurbo from NewAtlanta and fix that problem). Plus you can basically put the whole MySQL database in memory by changing the cache size --- run MySQL on an AMD Opteron 64-bit Linux platform with 8GB of RAM , and you're talking amazing speed for pretty huge databases since the disk access speed (slowest step for most db operations) is eliminated. So of course consider Oracle, DB2 (which is now approaching the same price point as MS-SQL) and MS-SQL and even Sybase for your project. But don't discount MySQL out of hand. Or PostgreSQL, but thats a completely different story and I'm sure Jochem is a better source for that than me :) Regards, John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Tilbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:33 AM Subject: RE: Urgent: Performance Help > But realistically no-one runs MySQL in a live production environment. Do > they? None of the major clients I service do. Oracle is a given now but > MSSQL seems to be gaining ground lost with XML support. Still no sign of SQL > Server 2003 in this part of the world yet. > > Developer editions of Oracle are certainly available - very resource > intensive (huge install requirements) - and MS SQL Server 2000 "Personal > Edition" could be an option. I had the option of MSSQL Standard or Personal > after a system rebuild and have gotten "personal" for now. On a dev machine > it is more than enough - I did not bother installing Access at all. > > And to "assume" that Access will "upsize" to SQL depends entirely upon the > version of Access you are using. More often than not it is easier to > recreate the database in SQL Server with test data. > > If you are serious about performance be serious about using a dbms that can > cut it. Oracle, MSSQL and then maybe MySQL. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: paris lundis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2003 7:38 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Urgent: Performance Help > > > At the starting level you seem to be at with the site and databases, I'd > recommend taking the MySQL route.... its free... runs on more platforms.. > runs darn fast... > > If you think your clients/company will be a Windoze shop or clients will be > wanting MS solutions I'd say pickup MsSQL afterwards... > > Simple selects, writes and updates aren't very different between them... > syntax can be annoying... Transactions and complicated sub queries, mass > unions, etc. typically are beyond what most folks actually need... > > Finally, MySQL + CF can be setup on a smallish computer within your home > /office and run pretty well... Be sure to setup dev environment of your > own before deploying your monster apps... > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=i:4:137541 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
