Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install
versions, no tweaking.

The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than
MS SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.

So, we'll be going with MySQL. It is also to not pay money to anyone,
and to get a full version and not some bastardized "evaluation"
server.

i

Out of interest , what amount of data did you use? also, how did you measure
the speed on the mySQL?
I'm interested in this process, as I'm just about to start evaluating .


----
Jack Vamvas

"Ignoramus7272" <ignoramus7272@NOSPAM.7272.invalid> wrote in message
news:c2l3p.8va.19.1@news.alt.net...
> Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install
> versions, no tweaking.
>
> The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than
> MS SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.
>
> So, we'll be going with MySQL. It is also to not pay money to anyone,
> and to get a full version and not some bastardized "evaluation"
> server.
>
> i

> Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install
> versions, no tweaking.
>
> The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than
> MS SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.

Brilliant. What table type?

What version of MySQL?

What version of MS SQL Server?

How much data?

What kind of indices, if at all, did you use?

How many concurrent inserts did you try?

How many concurrent selects did you try?

In short: what kind of test did you actually run in order to make
such a statement?

> So, we'll be going with MySQL. It is also to not pay money to anyone,
> and to get a full version and not some bastardized "evaluation"
> server.


--
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:17:27 +0000, Ignoramus7272 wrote:

> Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install versions,
> no tweaking.
>
> The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than MS
> SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.
>
> So, we'll be going with MySQL. It is also to not pay money to anyone, and
> to get a full version and not some bastardized "evaluation" server.

Version 4 or 5 of MySQL? You are sure you don't need transactions?

I've seen way to many programmers not thinking about database concurrency
resulting in corrupted databases. If MySQL cuts it (it does for most of my
applications), fine. However, if you need a true database, the tables turn
(pun intended).

HTH,
M4
--
Redundancy is a great way to introduce more single points of failure.

Martijn Lievaart wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:17:27 +0000, Ignoramus7272 wrote:
>
>
>>Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install versions,
>>no tweaking.
>>
>>The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than MS
>>SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.
>>
>>So, we'll be going with MySQL. It is also to not pay money to anyone, and
>>to get a full version and not some bastardized "evaluation" server.
>
>
> Version 4 or 5 of MySQL? You are sure you don't need transactions?
>
> I've seen way to many programmers not thinking about database concurrency
> resulting in corrupted databases. If MySQL cuts it (it does for most of my
> applications), fine. However, if you need a true database, the tables turn
> (pun intended).
>
> HTH,
> M4

MySQL can do transactions just fine if you use innodb tables. No
problem at all.

Of course MSSQL has other features, but MySQL is rapidly catching up.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:27:01 +0100, Jack Vamvas <DEL_TO_REPLYtechsupport@ciquery.com> wrote:
> Out of interest , what amount of data did you use? also, how did you measure
> the speed on the mySQL?
> I'm interested in this process, as I'm just about to start evaluating .
>

a few tens/hundreds of thousands of records, a few thousands of
selects with all diferent keys, that's all I know. I am aware that
people can argue forever about what constitutes the most refined test,
and that perhaps ours was not that.

i

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:20:54 +0200, Martijn Tonies <m.tonies@upscene.removethis.com> wrote:
>> Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install
>> versions, no tweaking.
>>
>> The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than
>> MS SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.
>
> Brilliant. What table type?

MyISAM

> What version of MySQL?

MySQL 5

> What version of MS SQL Server?

MS SQL Express '05, if I have that right.

> How much data?

About 100k records in various tables (about wehat we need)

> What kind of indices, if at all, did you use?

Whatever was appropriate for the selects

> How many concurrent inserts did you try?


> How many concurrent selects did you try?

no idea, we do not do concurrent statements in practice.

> In short: what kind of test did you actually run in order to make
> such a statement?

A bunch of selects and inserts, similar to what we need.

i

>> So, we'll be going with MySQL. It is also to not pay money to anyone,
>> and to get a full version and not some bastardized "evaluation"
>> server.
>
>

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 21:02:30 +0200, Martijn Lievaart <m@remove.this.part.rtij.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:17:27 +0000, Ignoramus7272 wrote:
>
>> Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install versions,
>> no tweaking.
>>
>> The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than MS
>> SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.
>>
>> So, we'll be going with MySQL. It is also to not pay money to anyone, and
>> to get a full version and not some bastardized "evaluation" server.
>
> Version 4 or 5 of MySQL? You are sure you don't need transactions?

5.

> I've seen way to many programmers not thinking about database concurrency
> resulting in corrupted databases. If MySQL cuts it (it does for most of my
> applications), fine. However, if you need a true database, the tables turn
> (pun intended).

Well, though we do not do any concurrent statements due to our system
design, I thought tat MySQL 5 covers concurrency just fine, no?

i

> >> Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install
> >> versions, no tweaking.
> >>
> >> The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than
> >> MS SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.
> >
> > Brilliant. What table type?
>
> MyISAM

So you're not using transactions then?

I hope it's not a so-called mission-critical application.

> > What version of MySQL?
>
> MySQL 5
>
> > What version of MS SQL Server?
>
> MS SQL Express '05, if I have that right.
>
> > How much data?
>
> About 100k records in various tables (about wehat we need)
>
> > What kind of indices, if at all, did you use?
>
> Whatever was appropriate for the selects
>
> > How many concurrent inserts did you try?
>
>
> > How many concurrent selects did you try?
>
> no idea, we do not do concurrent statements in practice.
>
> > In short: what kind of test did you actually run in order to make
> > such a statement?
>
> A bunch of selects and inserts, similar to what we need.

All sounds very thorough.


--
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - development tool for MySQL, and more!
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:38:39 +0200, Martijn Tonies <m.tonies@upscene.removethis.com> wrote:
>> >> Someone here tested MS SQL Server vs. MySQL. Both stock install
>> >> versions, no tweaking.
>> >>
>> >> The result of tests, roughly, is that MySQL is about 2-3x faster than
>> >> MS SQL Server, when doing selects or inserts or updates.
>> >
>> > Brilliant. What table type?
>>
>> MyISAM
>
> So you're not using transactions then?

Exactly!

> I hope it's not a so-called mission-critical application.

Depends on how you look at it...

i

>> > What version of MySQL?
>>
>> MySQL 5
>>
>> > What version of MS SQL Server?
>>
>> MS SQL Express '05, if I have that right.
>>
>> > How much data?
>>
>> About 100k records in various tables (about wehat we need)
>>
>> > What kind of indices, if at all, did you use?
>>
>> Whatever was appropriate for the selects
>>
>> > How many concurrent inserts did you try?
>>
>>
>> > How many concurrent selects did you try?
>>
>> no idea, we do not do concurrent statements in practice.
>>
>> > In short: what kind of test did you actually run in order to make
>> > such a statement?
>>
>> A bunch of selects and inserts, similar to what we need.
>
> All sounds very thorough.
>
>