Simple - just use a provider that will support the database of your choice.
====================================== Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all popular databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf ====================================== If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:49 PM Subject: Re: MySQL and performance [Was: Re: Urgent: Performance Help] | Here's my 2 cents | | Alot of folks say use MySQL because it's free. The problem I have with that | is that you have to write extra code to make up for what it's missing (i.e. | views, triggers, stored procs). So that drives up development cost and code | maintenance costs...so free isn't so free. | | Granted if it's used in ceratian situation as John Paul mentioned...then | sure...go for it....but for full-blown apps...I'm not sold...PostgreSQL | looks much better to me in that arena (although you'll still have to pry SQL | Server from my cold dead hands) ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | --------------------------------------------------------- | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | --------------------------------------------------------- | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder & Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "John Paul Ashenfelter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:29 AM | Subject: MySQL and performance [Was: Re: Urgent: Performance Help] | | | > 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:4:137553 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
