Colin,
In support of MySQL, when my company aquired clients from a previous employer we migrated thier sites from SQL Server to MySQL 3.23. One immediately saw a speed increase in their inventory search ( others saw speed increases as we fixed previous developers' code ;) ).
My previous full-time employer, Sabre, dropped Oracle in some areas in favor of MySQL:
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/press-release/release_2003_33.html
Plus, MySQL 4.1 has finally reached Production: http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/press-release/release_2004_32.html
- Subqueries (finally!) and derived tables
- Extensive Unicode support through the utf8 and ucs2 international character sets for applications that require the use of local languages;
- Improved full text search and Help features.
Add all that on top of the transaction support it already has and you've got a larger pile of reasons to not shell out for SQL Server.
FWIW, Stored Procedures and Views are in the 5.0 branch already. Hopefully we won't have to wait too much longer for them.
HTH,
Adrian J. Moreno
Matt Woodward wrote:
That being said, either database is going to be FAR superior to Access, and both are excellent choices. SQL Server is certainly easier to deal with from an administration standpoint and does have some niceties that MySQL lacks, but if you're having to pay for a license for SQL Server vs. getting MySQL for free, and you're not afraid of doing a bit extra work and learn the tools, MySQL is a great choice.
PostgreSQL is another great open source database that has a few more features than MySQL, so you might want to check that one out as well.
----------------------------------------------------------
To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberUnsubscribe.cfm
To subscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberRegistration.cfm
