If your databases have any size to them (like more than 1/2 the amount of
ram you have), you'll need to manage memory. SQL Expects to be an only
child. Check out sp_configure in books on line to learn how to limit the
amount of RAM sql will take
At 06:56 PM 4/8/2002 -0500, Tod Harter wrote:
On Friday 05 April 2002 02:25, David Williamson wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I will shortly be installing a MySQL server at my place of work, the box I
> will be installing it on currently has MS SQL server running as well. (I
> believe its a "wintel" box).
> Anyway, I am wondering if there are any know
Hi there,
I will shortly be installing a MySQL server at my place of work, the box I
will be installing it on currently has MS SQL server running as well. (I
believe its a "wintel" box).
Anyway, I am wondering if there are any known problems having MS SQL and
MySQL running on the same machine.
My
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 4:18 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve Quezadas
>Subject: Re: MySQL vs MS-SQL performance
>
>
>Steve,
>
>I also experienced the same results you did until I realized that
>the MS-SQL connection was using pooled con
Hi
At 14:12 27/03/2001 -0800, Steve Quezadas wrote:
>Hey guys,
>
>Most of the accounts I have read about MySQL was that it was one of the
>fastest databases around. Now, for development purposes I created a
>FreeBSD system with JUST MySQL (no other major processes). Then I created
>a separate
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 04:57:12PM -0800, Oson, Chris M. wrote:
>
> Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't using persistent connections more
> server resource intensive? I'm trying to optimize the database on a
> heavy site, and I decided not to use persistent connections.
Persistaet connections rem
ROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 4:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve Quezadas
Subject: Re: MySQL vs MS-SQL performance
Steve,
I also experienced the same results you did until I realized that
the MS-SQL connection was using pooled connections and my
use of MySQL wasn't. After I star
Steve,
I also experienced the same results you did until I realized that
the MS-SQL connection was using pooled connections and my
use of MySQL wasn't. After I started using persistent connections
to MySQL, it was much faster than MS-SQL on identical hardware
and no tuning on either system.
Als
In the last episode (Mar 27), Steve Quezadas said:
> Most of the accounts I have read about MySQL was that it was one of
> the fastest databases around. Now, for development purposes I created
> a FreeBSD system with JUST MySQL (no other major processes). Then I
> created a separate Windows 2000 A
Did you put MS-SQL server on the ASP server machine? Or did you put windows
2000 on that formerly bsd box.
Where both setups communicating over ethernet?
Or was the second setup a single box? (would be much faster)
An ASP server communicating to MS-SQL, even via ODBC, is probably as close
to opt
Hi.
Well, there are too few information to say something concrete. Maybe,
for your enviromnet, MS-SQL is really faster, maybe MySQL wasn't well
tuned.
Anyhow, I wanted to point out, that there are two MySQL ODBC drivers
around, one with debugging enabled, the other one without debugging.
The one
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:12:36PM -0800, Steve Quezadas wrote:
>
> Anyways, a period of time elapsed and we decided to move to MS-SQL
> server for feature reasons, and when we had the MS-SQL ODBC driver
> point to the newly created MS-SQL server (roughly same specs), it
> was like 50% faster! Wha
Hey guys,
Most of the accounts I have read about MySQL was that it was one of the fastest
databases around. Now, for development purposes I created a FreeBSD system with JUST
MySQL (no other major processes). Then I created a separate Windows 2000 ASP server to
server as our development server
13 matches
Mail list logo
