On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Boyd, Todd M. <tmbo...@ccis.edu> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Ballard [mailto:aball...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:05 AM
>> To: a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
>> Cc: Boyd, Todd M.; PHP General list
>> Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: How important is your Express or Web Edition
>> database? Please weigh in--
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Ashley Sheridan
>> <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 16:41 -0600, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Andrew Ballard [mailto:aball...@gmail.com]
>> >> > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:26 PM
>> >> > To: Bastien Koert
>> >> > Cc: Shawn McKenzie; php-general@lists.php.net
>> >> > Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: How important is your Express or Web
>> Edition
>> >> > database? Please weigh in--
>> >> I use SQLExpress (SQL Server Express) all the time at work for
>> prototyping and such... although, I have to say--if my company hadn't
>> installed it on my machine to begin with, and they weren't running SQL
>> Server 2005 on the production servers, I would rather just use a
>> private MySQL installation for prototyping and then push to a MySQL
>> production server. Alas...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> // Todd
>> > For me it's MySQL all the way. My company is too cheap to pay for
>> later
>> > versions of MS SQL Server, so the versions we have there are *very*
>> > limited in features (for example, no limit function!) MySQL also
>> seems a
>> > lot faster for me too. I regularly deal with large databases (think
>> > millions of records) and MSSQL is a real bottleneck here, whereas
>> MySQL
>> > seems fine (althogh, it is running on Linux, which frees up more
>> > resources for actually getting stuff done!)
>> >
>> > Oh, funny thing. I filled in the questionnaire above, and when it got
>> to
>> > the final 'thanks' page, I clicked the button, and it bombed out to a
>> > completely blank page. Doesn't bode too well for a company attempting
>> to
>> > sell a product for use in enterprise situations!
>> >
>> >
>> > Ash
>> > www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
>> >
>> It all depends on what you need. I know from your previous posts that
>> you're not very well disposed to SQL Server, but I've used it quite a
>> bit now for the last 8 years and haven't really had any problems with
>> performance. I'll grant that it doesn't have the LIMIT clause (Is it
>> part of the actual ANSI SQL spec, or is it something handy that MySQL
>> added to their product?) The newer versions offer a row number
>> function that can be used to provide the the same functionality, but
>> I'll admit it is not nearly as simple as being able to say LIMIT 25,
>> 50.
>> While I like MySQL, it has its oddities as well. I've run into
>> situations where I had to add ORDER BY clauses to UPDATE statements
>> (I'm not sure that's really valid SQL either) because it updated the
>> rows sequentially and validated a unique index after each row rather
>> than after all the rows were processed. I wish it would support CHECK
>> constraints. And as convenient as I've found the SET and ENUM
>> datatypes in simple databases, I'm coming to the notion that they are
>> not a good idea in most situations. And while the availability of
>> different engines has benefits, it can also cause issues.
> Wait, wait, wait... I know SQL Server doesn't have "LIMIT", but haven't you 
> guys ever used "TOP"? As in...
> select top 10 * from some_table where some_column = 'some_value';
> ?? I'm not sure about getting lower bounds (maybe there is a BOTTOM, but I'm 
> too lazy right now)... but if you're just trying to limit the number of rows 
> in your result with a cap, then TOP does the trick just fine.

Of course I've used it. I've also used SET ROWCOUNT, too. To limit the
results to a fixed number of rows, they work just fine. But the TOP
keyword by itself doesn't come near providing the capability to
provide paged results that you can get using MySQL's LIMIT clause.
I've seen a lot of workarounds posted but they all have limitations.

> I've had to do a lot of searching to find ways to do stuff in SQL Server that 
> were already natural for me in MySQL (as I learned on MySQL and develop 
> independently with it), but I have yet to be completely taken aback by 
> something that's missing in SQL Server. (I am a little miffed that you have 
> to do a sub-query on information_schema in order to test for object 
> existence, though.)

There are other ways, but that is the "correct" way since it's part of
standard SQL and therefore not as likely to change or disappear in
future versions.

> Anyway, I don't see what all the anti-MSSQL sentiment is all about. I use it 
> all the time (SQL Express, SQL Server 2000 and 2005 Professional) and I don't 
> find myself wanting for something I could have done in MySQL but cannot do in 

Neither have I. For that matter, depending on the project I prefer SQL
Server because it doesn't ignore CHECK constraints. And as for speed,
I have yet to have SQL Server be the bottleneck in an application that
I've had to work on -- either MySQL or SQL Server.

> SSIS packages are pretty sweet to work with, BTW, if you've ever needed to 
> build DTS solutions. :D

I can't wait to see them. I like DTS in 2000, and I've heard that SSIS
is supposed to be much better. So far, we are still running 2000.
Given the license costs, we just haven't had a compelling reason to
upgrade to 2005 since 2000 is more than adequate for what we need. I
think we are looking at jumping straight to 2008 later this year
though. (We also have to wait in some cases for 3rd party app vendors
to release versions of products that support the newer versions of SQL


PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to