|
|
 |
RE: FN-FORUM: Databases
date posted 4th August 2003 10:38
I've used a number of DB's (not including mySQL I must admit), Oracle is
fine if you've got the cash, a pukka DB Admin and lots of time - it does
the job very quickly but for every project I've ever worked on from
SME's to global multi-nationals, it could have been done better using
SQL Server.
SQL Server (you'll be scared to know) is the DB of choice for a number
of military applications and can handle a very large number of
transactions per second - certainly in excess of 200... I'd like to see
the reference to that as well - maybe it just applies to SQL Server 7,
not 2000 (which is way better than 7).
Any DB that doesn't support stored procedures is as previously mentioned
- a toy. The ability to separate table access from the "user" (that is
the software / developer who wants access to those tables) is a must in
pukka development. You don't want to have your ASP/PHP littered with
SELECT statements because managing them is horrendous if you change the
DB schema's to provide new features and it's also bloats up your
"uncompiled" code with uncompile SQL Statements. Much better to provide
for parameterised access to your data - it gives more control over what
can and can't be seen.
If you want a half-way house (on win2k server) go for MSDE - SQL Server
lite - 5 connections max but that's not really a problem on most sites
as the queries should run very quickly if the DB and the queries are
designed properly. And when you've got problems with the number of
connections / speed when your site(s) have taken off, you should have
agood enough revenue stream to purchase a pukka SQL Server licence - and
to migrate you simply detach the databases from MSDE and reattach to SQL
Server.
Just my 2p
Cheers
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Parratt [EMAIL REMOVED]
Sent: 04 August 2003 00:55
To: Andy Macnaughton-Jones
Subject: RE: FN-FORUM: Databases
> =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Saturday 2nd August 2003 11:57:11
> Re: FN-FORUM: Databases - render.web [EMAIL REMOVED] Hmm -=20
> its not a speed but transactions, scalability, stability, recovery
> etc that comes into play when
> selecting Oracle and co. over MySQL, PG etc. IMHO Oracle is=20
> no longer a=20
> stable and reliable
> preformance oriented database. It used to have a good=20
> developer network=20
> that cost around 2K a
> year to join but now it is worse than useless and pretty much=20
> everyone I=20
> know has not renewed.
> As a WDBi integrator of some ten years - I did the oraperl OCI7=20
> migration - I firmly believe that
> oracle has no interest in selling database technology for use=20
> by third=20
> parties. Thier key market is
> web services and WSI. They no longer have a database worth=20
> using unless=20
> you buy into the
> Oracle architecture and technology.
>=20
> MySQL is and always will be a toy. It has some very severe
> limitations=20
> but comes in source form
> and can be "fixed" if you accept the limitations of the=20
> original design.=20
> If you have the technical in house
> support resources it can be cost effective, but if you want=20
> commercial=20
> support take a look at thier
> support pricing. IMHO everything below the third level of support is=20
> available for free elsewhere and at
> that level you could purchase a real transactional RDBMS and=20
> support for=20
> the same money.
>=20
> Having spent some time working around SS7, all I can say are
> bad things=20
> about it. Who would want to
> use a DB that has a 200 IPS transactional limit and decides=20
> to randomly=20
> truncate varchars etc when you
> exceed 30 IPS?
> As a comparison, Oracle can do easily 10K and MySQL can do a lot more=20
> than this (non transactional).
>=20
> DB2 is supposedly being pushed at Web SME's right now but I
> have no idea=20
> of operational and
> support costs, performance or stability.
>=20
> Jax
So what *do* you suggest!=20
I guess any software is going to have limitations. I'd tend to use MySQL
until the lack of stored procs, etc. becomes an issue, then move to
SS2000. (first time I've heard of the transaction limits - got a
reference?)
Having recently done an Oracle project, I've become even more convinced
that its enterprise features (versus SQL Server) are 95% FUD. And the
tools you get in-the-box are soooo primitive. Worse than MySQL really..
Cheers,
Richard
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
fido.net are pleased to sponsor these Freelancers messages. For all
your web hosting needs check out http://www.fido.net/ with hosting
packages starting from just =A346.95 a year including VAT. Free 0871
Fax2Email numbers also available online! http://www.fido.net/ - the
internet made simple! - 0800 1072 666
To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html
|
|
|
