Is MySQL a viable alternative to MS SQL Server

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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)