Reply to: Is MySQL a viable alternative to MS SQL Server

[d000hg]

Actually MySQL could be free but any support issues will cost you big bucks as you desperately try and find a MySQL "guru" who can identify the real issue.

I think there's more to it than that, I may well be wrong but I thought you got more stuff if you paid, as well as support. Tools and so on?

Get The Facts: MySQL Licensing and Pricing (Oracle's MySQL Blog)

[Spacecadet]

In SQL Server, you can alternatively just create one fact table at the lowest grain and then have Analysis Services build all the aggregates for you.

If you're using analysis services, I assumed he wasn't

[Freamon]

Indexed views would be the one.

From a data warehousing perspective though, you would just create a summary table, at a data level you're not bothered about the fact your storing the same bit of information twice. Having fact tables at different levels of granularity but based on the same data is not a bad thing

In SQL Server, you can alternatively just create one fact table at the lowest grain and then have Analysis Services build all the aggregates for you.

[eek]

Oracle and MSSQL both have cheap prices, despite this open-source people (not meaning anyone in this thread) generally find the most expensive license and say "MySQL is FREE, M$ costs $50k". Note that for enterprise scale projects, MySQL is also likely to cost you.

Actually MySQL could be free but any support issues will cost you big bucks as you desperately try and find a MySQL "guru" who can identify the real issue.

[doodab]

Oracle and MSSQL both have cheap prices, despite this open-source people (not meaning anyone in this thread) generally find the most expensive license and say "MySQL is FREE, M$ costs $50k". Note that for enterprise scale projects, MySQL is also likely to cost you.

Indeed.

https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/product?p1=mysql

[d000hg]

Oracle and MSSQL both have cheap prices, despite this open-source people (not meaning anyone in this thread) generally find the most expensive license and say "MySQL is FREE, M$ costs $50k". Note that for enterprise scale projects, MySQL is also likely to cost you.

[doodab]

1. Oracle = **** me how much?!
2. Oracle express = What my DB can't be over 4GB, goto 1.

The cost is comparable with MS SQL Server, slightly cheaper if you have a small user base and can take advantage of oracle's lower minimum license requirement for per user licensing.

MS SQL Standard edition (up to 4 socket servers) is about £6k per CPU or £2k for server & 10 client licenses.
MS SQL Workgroup edition (up to 2 socket servers) is about £3k per CPU or £600 for server & 5 client licenses.

1 x CPU license for oracle standard edition (max 4 socket server) is about £12k, but the minimum of 5 named user licenses costs 5 x £235 = £1175 for perpetual licenses or £235 for one year licenses.

1 x CPU license for oracle standard edition one (max 2 socket server) costs about £4k, but the minimum of 5 named user licenses costs only 5 x £121 = £605. This can be cut down to £120 upfront cost if you go for an annual license instead of perpetual.

[Spacecadet]

I expect MS SQL has something similar but I don't know what it's called.

Indexed views would be the one.

From a data warehousing perspective though, you would just create a summary table, at a data level you're not bothered about the fact your storing the same bit of information twice. Having fact tables at different levels of granularity but based on the same data is not a bad thing

[DimPrawn]

Have a look at oracle / oracle express. Materialized views will do what you want for the summary tables. I expect MS SQL has something similar but I don't know what it's called.

Perhaps look at (n)hibernate for the abstraction layer.

1. Oracle = **** me how much?!
2. Oracle express = What my DB can't be over 4GB, goto 1.

[eek]

Have a look at oracle / oracle express. Materialized views will do what you want for the summary tables. I expect MS SQL has something similar but I don't know what it's called.

Perhaps look at (n)hibernate for the abstraction layer.

or assuming .net 3.5 or 4 entity framework and linq would make you very database neutral. Mind you I only say this because I hate the command line side nature of nhibernate.

Don't go near llbprogen or whatever it is called that thing is a pile of crud.

[doodab]

Have a look at oracle / oracle express. Materialized views will do what you want for the summary tables. I expect MS SQL has something similar but I don't know what it's called.

Perhaps look at (n)hibernate for the abstraction layer.

[Sysman]

Certainly MySql will be more than able to handle 20 million rows. But regardless of that I would be trying to develop the application with a database abstraction layer so it could use MSSQL/Mysql or whatever Db the customer likes - Oracle springs to mind.

Drupal has implemented a database abstraction layer covering MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite. OK, it's in PHP, but should give you an idea of the scope of the work involved.

[d000hg]

eBay might now, but I saw a spec for a custom in-memory engine a while ago. Perhaps they didn't use it in the end.

Interesting link about Google, I stand corrected. However I'm pretty dubious they couldn't get mainstream DB engines as performant as MySQL. That smacks of a screw-up to me.
I also would theorize they have some custom modules for MySQL in the same way FaceBook made their own special PHP compiler, but it's still a good sign.

[Freamon]

I think this is a little misleading. It might be used within Google for internal projects but Google use their own "megabase" for their main products... Google are really into NIH (wiki).

My own example is perhaps slightly misleading too, eBay use some custom modifications. However the fact remains unless you're doing something rather unusual, MySQL should be fine.

Google uses MySQL for Adwords, which is pretty core to their business, and will have pretty enormous transaction volumes. See: Google's use of MySQL.

They do have internally developed systems like BigTable as well.

eBay use MySQL for some things but I think their main item database is on Teradata.

[VectraMan]

More perplexing is wanting to use C++ for a modern GUI app, IMHO, if the client is Windows-only? MFC has still been getting some attention but winforms is so much easier to work with, and doesn't mangle your code the way MFC does... if you like C++ because it's 'clean' then MFC seems abhorrent C++ also has less standardised tools for DB access, unlike Java/.Net.

You can do .NET with C++, and use all the same DB access.

I worked on a 6-month Winforms project, and whilst C# perhaps is better for GUI stuff, I'm not at all convinced Winforms is so great. The problem with MFC is often people tend to take it too seriously - i.e. think they have to do things the MFC way, but Winforms comes with a load of quirks too.

You could always combine a C#/VB .NET GUI with C++ to "do the work".

There's also wxWidgets that is a not-half bad cross platform similar to MFC framework.

But if you are looking for someone to do small bits of C++ GUI work, let me know.