]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:57 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: MS SQL vs MySQL WAS: [admin] List status
I should have been more specific, but I mean in terms of
features and not just speed.
I use stored procs almost exclusively and thats my only
main gripe about MySQL.
--
Clint
Justin Greene wrote:
Last time I checked it did not support refrential integrity, you enforce it
manually. This and lack of stored procedure support is enough to keep me
away (as much as I would like a free/cheap alternative).
Then pick something else, it is not like MySQL is the only
I should have been more specific, but I mean in terms of
features and not just speed.
I use stored procs almost exclusively and thats my only
main gripe about MySQL.
--
Clint Tredway
--
Through Him, anything is possible.
What about the recent comparison in
I've heard about that article, but haven't read it. Could you provide a
link?
It is well known that MySQL is very very fast reading, however under load
it's record locking is not up to par with the big guys, and it's write speed
is well below the rest.
What MySQL can not touch is MS SQL's stored
I think I found it: http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708a=23115,00.asp
Jonathan Sakai
Online Services Manager
American College of Nurse-Midwives
www.midwife.org
www.midwifejobs.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/15/02 02:00PM
I've heard about that article, but haven't read it. Could you
]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: MS SQL vs MySQL WAS: [admin] List status
I think I found it:
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708a=23115,00.asp
Jonathan Sakai
Online Services Manager
American College of Nurse-Midwives
www.midwife.org
www.midwifejobs.com
I should have been more specific, but I mean in terms of
features and not just speed.
NP.
I use stored procs almost exclusively and thats my only
main gripe about MySQL.
I see that they are adding stored procs to 4.1 (or maybe 4.2), so it's on
the map...
--
Clint Tredway
article here
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708a=23115,00.asp
also you have to take into account that they were using JDBC drivers and
MSSQL had problems.
Quoted:
Due to its significant JDBC (Java Database Connectivity) driver problems,
SQL Server was limited to about 200 pages per
Seeing as how JDBC is the CF flavor of the day going forward, the comparison seems
reasonable to me. Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind the SQL Server JDBC
drivers are broken by design, and I would expect some third party to eventually
release something better.
Kevin
[EMAIL
doesn't count. lol
jon
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: MS SQL vs MySQL WAS: [admin] List status
article here
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708a=23115,00.asp
also you have to take
: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: MS SQL vs MySQL WAS: [admin] List status
article here
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708a=23115,00.asp
also you have to take into account that they were using JDBC drivers and
MSSQL had problems.
Quoted:
Due to its significant JDBC
]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: MS SQL vs MySQL WAS: [admin] List status
article here
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708a=23115,00.asp
also you have to take into account that they were using JDBC drivers and
MSSQL had
on how under
Win2k/ODBC/ASP outperformed all of them by over 300 page view per second but
it really doesn't count. lol
jon
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: MS SQL vs MySQL WAS: [admin] List
13 matches
Mail list logo
