Hi Leo,
>>>>> "Leo" == Leo Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leo> Raj, The write-up on MySQL though a bit dated does raise
Leo> well-known issues. I have always failed to get any impression
Leo> that MySQL was designed for high-end, large enterprise-level
Leo> mission-critical database management applications with
Leo> potentially hundreds and thousands of simultaneous
Leo> transactions. Though, I do hear that MySQL has been deployed
Leo> at a few centres with prominent names. Essentials like
Leo> transaction support, stored procedures and the like were not
Leo> there in earlier versions and while some things are changing
Leo> in the new versions. I would keep an open mind as to how and
Leo> what MySQL develops into.
Leo> The point I will make is: What kind of an RDBMS does a small
Leo> business need? They may have just about one server and a
Leo> dozen or perhaps 20 workstations. They may have about one
Leo> database with 5 to 10 tables with not more than 5,000 to
Leo> 50,000 records. And much of the database could consist of
Leo> static information - say bibliographies and listings.... or
Leo> even if database content changes regularly the system is not
Leo> "heavily" used as in a large-enterprise...you get the
Leo> picture.
MySQL is great, for example, for the typical web-hosting provider who
usually needs a small RDBMS which would accomodate a few hundred
databases with a few thousand records each.
Leo> Now why would such an organization go for an over-kill RDBMS
Leo> like ORACLE for example, if MySQL can do the job?
No reason at all. I agree, MySQL is great for some scenarios.
However I personally wouldn't use it as far as possible, since any
application I can think of developing would have growth potential.
It's basically a question of looking at the future -- if there's any
chance at all that your database will grow larger and your access to
the database more complex over time then you should be seriously
looking at one of the alternatives. If the application and data
access are static, and the database only growing at (say) 10-20% per
year, no reason to avoid MySQL at all.
Leo> One can bring in Postgres and other database environments
Leo> into the discussion, but the fact is one would like to use
Leo> the tool most suited to the task at hand.
Leo> Leo
Leo> At 10:10 AM 4/28/2002, you wrote:
>> http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html
>>
>> This paper attempts to discuss some reasons to use and not to
>> use MySQL. While it's pretty old, some of the reasons would
>> still be valid. Comments?
Regards,
-- Raju
--
Raju Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/
It is the mind that moves
================================================
To subscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subscribe in subject header
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header
Archives are available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
=================================================
