WHERE THE HELL IS POSTGRESQL

» Report offensive content

First off, you've really not done justice to the fact that MySQL's feature set, and very correctness in the sense of the rules of relational theory, are far beneath the other players.

Secondly, where is PostgreSQL in these tests. *That* would make for a much better feature-for-feature performance test with the enterprise-cl**** commercial solutions, and would probably fare very well.

» Report offensive content

I'm curious about the validity of this statement:

"SQL Server Express is one of two free databases we tested and is actually Microsoft's replacement for its earlier free offering the Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE) which was based on the old Access technology."

As far as I am aware MSDE has always been based on MS-SQL (Not access), and that it was a throttled back version there of.

» Report offensive content

Please review PostgreSQL as well. The Windows installer comes with a GUI admin tool. www.postgresql.org

» Report offensive content

Are we to guess that a cobol database would have required too much coding for you to test it also?

» Report offensive content

I dont find it serious to rate DBMSs without benchmarks? Im sure that MySql has no business being in the field if real benchmarking was done.

» Report offensive content

What about postgresql? There is more that one OS RDBMS.

» Report offensive content

A good comparison should also consider PostgreSQL since it has a lot of features MySQL hasn't, and has a much more friendly license that makes truly free as in beer.

» Report offensive content

What about PostgreSQL 8.x?

» Report offensive content

"replacement for its earlier free offering the Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE) which was based on the old Access technology"

NO, thats not true! MSDE was never based on Access!
Some might say MSDE was "based on SQL Server" and
even that is an understatement:

MSDE == SQL Server.

Literally, MSDE uses the exact same code as SQL Server. The only difference between MSDE and SQL Server 2000 was the throttling and lack of administrative tools. Engine-wise, MSDE is exact same as SQL Server 2000

» Report offensive content

This is arguably the worst technical review I have ever read.

It is no more than a feature-by-feature "tick list". It has numerous technical factual errors, lack of justification of each product's relative merits and weaknesses, a ridiculously uninformed bias towards MySQL and it compares apples to oranges (Oracle 10g standard vs. SQL server Express 2005? Absurd!). It also falls prey to flagrant business buzzword BS.

I can only ****ume the author has never actually worked in the development of production databases. Probably a third-grade marketing consultant who feels qualified to comment on the basis that he's knocked up a homepage for his grandmother on the web.

Spreading trite and vacuous misinformation in the way this site has done here fills me with utter contempt for your futile site. I will not take builderau.com.au seriously in the future.

» Report offensive content

Relational Database: A collection of "related" databases, for example and travel agent booking system consisting of customer, airline and account details, can be combined and would be referred to as a Relational Database.

No.

Local Area Network: A Local network in your area; that's more accurate, but still silly - your definition is just wrong:

A collection of databases (they don't have to be related) is known as a catalog (SQL-92). You've confused table with database.

You need to do some reading on relational theory.

» Report offensive content

I find it odd that this editor only used MySQL to compare open source databases to commercial vendors. When comparing enterprise-cl**** databases such as Oracle, DB2, and SQL Server one would think the editor would similarly compare enterprise-cl**** open source software such as PostgreSQL, EnterpriseDB, and Firebird rather than MySQL. The first questions that come to mind are, is the editor unaware that other open source databases exist, or did MySQL sponsor this article?

It would be hard to argue that the editor doesn't know about such things as EnterpriseDB, who sells an uncrippled and enhanced version of PostgreSQL, has won several major awards, and has been getting much better press than MySQL in the last six months.

» Report offensive content

The term "relational database management system" has nothing to do with relationships between databases, or within databases. It derives from the mathematical concept of a "relation" whic is in essence a table, eith rows, columns and a heading. A RDBMS then is a database composed of tables (as opposed to e.g. trees or graphs, the basic forms of hierarchical and network DBMSs). Relations share many characteristics with sets, and many of the operations between sets have analogous operators between relations. Thus it is possible to peform operations on and between whole tables, instead of records (rows) or fields (row/column intersections). SQL supports many of these table level operations, however host languages like Java or C++ do not, so most programs are constrained to the limited functionality which is mapped through JDBC, ODBC, etc.

I found this article disappointing, having many inaccuracies and misleading statements. The author apperently has no fundamental knowledge of the field.

» Report offensive content

What about security? How it's security managed in each engine?

» Report offensive content

Firebird >= MySQL

» Report offensive content

Tested? Where are the tests? All you guys did was read the product documentation and summarize it. It's also quite obvious that you already had a winner picked in your mind before even starting the project. Not only that, but why use BETA designated products (unless you agree that MySQL is permenantly BETA or something ;))

Can you say "worthless"? I thought you could.

» Report offensive content

Why is PostgreSQL not mentioned in this article?

-Matt

» Report offensive content

You kinda missed the boat by not testing PostgresQL.

» Report offensive content

Was PostgreSQL considered?

» Report offensive content

Lots of comments, first the factual errors;

1/ MSDE was not based on Access technology, MSDE 1.0 was based on SQL7, MSDE 2000 was based on SQL Server 2000

2/Single CPU/Scheduler issue, what you fail to point out is that Express is limited to one CPU, not core, hence on a HT enabled machine it will use both "processers" on a multicore machine it will use all cores. Hence a faster CPU is not the answer, a more modern one is.

3/ 4GB Database size limit, this is for a single database, you can have many databases on an instance and many (16) instances on a box.

4/ Upgrade Path, is not to Std Edition it is to workgroup edition. With correctly written apps express can scale to 100's of users as MSDE did before it.

5/ Express will include Reporting Services in an update next year, this was announced in June of this year, your info is out of date.

6/ Crippleware, I have no idea what you mean by referring to the No 1 OLAP Server(http://www.olapreport.com) as crippleware?

7/ 4GB Database Size, putting pictures inside the database is not always the right architectural solution, sometimes it is better to have them in the file system and maintain links in the db. It depends on the size of the images and the transaction characteristics so it may not impact the system growth at all.

8/ UNable to connect in Windows Auth mode comment, I suspect you did something wrong as this is the default and works, period.

9/ Snapshot isolation level is just one of several isolation levels supported by SQL Server Express.

Now the broader questions;

1/ Why are you using an 18month old version of SQL server express? Beta 2 was released in summer 05. There have been many CTPs since then.

2/ Why compare a free SKU of SQL Server with a low end paid SKU of DB2 and a full SKU of 10G? Why not use SQL Server Workgroup Edition as an alternative or in addition?

» Report offensive content

WHERE IS DB2 ???

Do u have any idea of what DB2 is capable of ??

I dont think you have tested anything.

DB2 was the first relational database to have the best darn support for latest technologies.

This study is not considered to be worth the time

Do more research and then come to a conclusion.

» Report offensive content

For a database as described here, I dont blame a company for using a piddly free database. This example used sounds like a database I would design in my 12th grade computer cl****.

I am a DB2 DBA and support DB's up to 2 TB. Try running one of those (reliably) on MySQL. I know MySQL has gotten much better over the years and it probably makes sese to use in some enviroments, but not mine. No way.

» Report offensive content

NO POSTGRESQL? Your credibility just sank to zero.

And you can't use that "but there's no Windows port" excuse anymore...

» Report offensive content

The fact that you've neglected to introduce Ingres and Postgres into your comparison says it all.

DB2, SQL Server and Oracle will end up costing you dear.

My company compared MySQl, Postgres and Ingres. Results:-

MySQl is a toy,
Postgres is mucho powerful but doesn't scale too well.
Ingres is absolutely outstanding. We still can't believe its free!

» Report offensive content

I can't remember when I last saw such a poor example of a "side by side comparison" of products before. To believe that MySQL is anything more than a toy is shocking, to miss out PostgreSQL entirely is criminal...

» Report offensive content

ie, yi, yi

free is not free, and cheap is not cheap. You mix and match and my head can not understand why you interchange semi-enterprise with non-enterprise with junk. Sure if I am making a website for home I use MySQL, but maybe it not work with big applications that use SMNP, enterprise managers, performance monitors, etc ... Oh yeah, i have the source code so I can just code all these tools myself ... no thankyou boss.

» Report offensive content

Why would you compare SQL Server Express and Oracle? Thats apples to oranges.

» Report offensive content

angry mob of DBAs hehe

» Report offensive content

It is possible to install more MS SQL Express databases on a system so you can have more than 4GB Database size and more than 1GB bufferpool.

I want to use a quad core processor so I can use more cores..but can a second quad core processor be used by the other MS Express database?

I'm not an expert so I hope someone can give me some feedback on my thoughts.

» Report offensive content

Worst. Review. Ever.

I mean, totally pathetic. The author clearly has absolutely no idea what what relational database management systems are.

builderau.com has become a laughing stock of the technical community over this shiteshower of an article, and quite deservedly so.

» Report offensive content

We have versions of our software that run on both Oracle and MySQL. Our experience has shown that MySQL wins hands down over Oracle in just about every category: ease-of-install, administration, standard SQL syntax support, flexibility of SQL syntax support and, most importantly, performance. Admittedly our application isn't a heavy-weight in terms of concurrent sessions or DB size, and Oracle10g is a lot better than 9i in performance, but MySQL runs rings around Oracle when installed "out of the box" without any performance tuning.
The 'mysqldump' utility is a godsend with no direct equivalent in Oracle, making it extremely easy to migrate databases from one site to another. With the dollars Oracle expects, having no ability to generate an SQL script from an existing database is bordering on abusive.

» Report offensive content

Yes, I agree with the Editor's choice. Database is an integral part of any organization today and its security, global availability, affordability and continous development on part of MySQL can't be matched by any other database in market today in 2007.

» Report offensive content

I am working with a postgres database. I wrote a software in C++ Builder and the entries are the data of my database. How to communicate with database, how to read columns What language must I use, is this TQuery?

» Report offensive content