|
Very limited scope boys and girls, only asking about the most unreliable SQL servers.
I like to see some value when I take part in our polls.
Most SQL databases are not on the MS varieties, SQLite (embedded in your phone !) and MYsql top the list.
I use SQL servers all the time, but never the ones I can't trust.
Need to ask the question so that it removes false perspectives.
Including selections for 'other' and 'none' would give a correct perspective.
Robert2006
|
|
|
|
|
Blackfish for small applications as an Embedded database
And Sql2000 for enterprise applications
We don't use SQL2005 because of packaging problems, so SQL2008...
|
|
|
|
|
I use MySQL for light weight personal databases, and Oracle DB when going huge (our application have more than 4000 tables, and MS SQL is crap with Siebel)
|
|
|
|
|
Like many developers, we work on code that gets widely deployed outside our own organization. So the code we write, test and debug needs to work with just about any old SQL Server, not just the fairly recent (but not bleeding edge) server used in our own environment.
So when reading articles on CodeProject etc. I prefer articles on methods that do not raise the minimum system requirements for resulting applications. In other words, needing some latest bleeding tool in our development environment is kind of OK, but requiring our end users to ditch their old SQL Server 7 deployment is not. In some cases, new Microsoft tools suffer from raising runtime requirements prematurely and this forces us to hold back on those versions or develop workarounds, which in turn reduces the level of interest in Codeproject articles for the new Tool (as in "We can't yet use MS magictool 2008, because not all our users run SQL Server 2008, so articles that only explain how to do stuff in magictool 2008 are not interesting").
This message is hasty and is not to be taken as serious, professional or legally binding.
I work with low level C/C++ in user and kernel mode, but also dabble in other areas.
<div class="ForumMod">modified on Friday, October 17, 2008 10:17 AM</div>
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I do agree with your point, but eventually I think you need to use the newer features. Personally, if I were to use MS-SQL again I'd not hesitate to use SQL Server 2000 specifics and force users to use that version. If they didn't have it, I'd slap them on the free version or MSDE or something.
|
|
|
|
|
For most Microsoft products, we eventually raise our "minimum system requirements" to exclude some older versions, but generally we do so much later than the early dates where Microsoft does so under their notorious product support policies.
But for database servers we often have the additional constraint that we must also support customers who have chosen to use a non-MS database vendor such as IBM or Oracle, which tends to make most MS SQL 200x features unavailable anyway. We prefer MS SQL Server, but our paying customers sometimes do not (they may even be running the databases on real mainframes).
This message is hasty and is not to be taken as serious, professional or legally binding.
I work with low level C/C++ in user and kernel mode, but also dabble in other areas.
|
|
|
|
|
Jakob Bohm wrote: but generally we do so much later than the early dates where Microsoft does so under their notorious product support policies.
I totally agree with that. I've only recently stopped caring about support Win95 in my apps. I mean, I will if I can, but I don't care as much about it as I used to and this was years after MS stopped caring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I choose flexibility and spead in my RDBMS. 
*cough* *cough* Clickety[^] *cough* *cough*
|
|
|
|
|
I think Elliot Spitzer had a similar motto...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
VCF Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: I think Elliot Spitzer had a similar motto...
Crap, I'm at a loss.  Who's that?
|
|
|
|
|
Uhmm, google is your friend, but not at work...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
VCF Blog
|
|
|
|
|
OIC, he's prefers MySQL too. Not bad for a democrat. 
I just noticed I got a 4 vote. Must've been that phlegm I launched while coughing.
|
|
|
|
|
Elliot Spitzer:
FORMER Governor of NY - "Busted" for patronizing a prostitute that charges $1000's/vist.
paid for her travel across state lines, so he was busted for Federal Crime, possibility of jail, etc. At least he used his own money.
He is notable, in particular, for a career (as NY State Attorney General) otherwise rather notable for its attack on organized crime and corruption. He brought done a significant number of Mofioso big-shots.
Party, this is because he was a Democrat and the US Dept. of Justice (etc) is infiltrated with Ghoulish Olde Phartz (a.k.a., the GOP). The foul beasts, the same ones who brought you Ronald Reagan and George "the Shrub" Bush will use any part of the US government for personal gains and vendettas. By stacking the US Supreme court with their Conservative shills.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_spitzer[^]
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I choose flexibility and spead in my RDBMS.
Which is exactly why you should stay away from MySQL 
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Which is exactly why you should stay away from MySQL
*cough* *cough* MySQL scales much better than Postgre, especially over the web where thousands of simultaneous connections may be made at any given time. Yahoo prefers MySQL and their site isn't slow. *cough* *cough*
Whoops, had something stuck in my throat.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: where thousands of simultaneous connections may be made at any given time.
And these connections doing what? I actually worked with MySQL until early this year, and it was starting to dramatically slow down at as low as 15 simultaneous users querying it at the same time. We switched to the 64-bit version and that helped a bit but did not solve the problem. We switched from InnoDB to MyIsam and gave up transactions (to my horror) - again it helped a little but not much. Eventually we called MySQL AB consultants who reviewed all the queries and said there was nothing wrong with them; they also explained that MySQL clustering capabilities were not "quite there yet". I suggested to switch to Oracle grid, but my boss decided to play some games with reducing traffic and splitting databases instead. No idea how it ended up, and I don't really want to know
Sorry if I offend anyone, but MySQL is a joke. And if you don't believe me read what other people including some MySQL developers have to say about it[^] 
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Sorry if I offend anyone, but MySQL is a joke. And if you don't believe me read what other people including some MySQL developers have to say about it[^]
I'm not offended... because you're wrong.
Really, anyone can pull some someone's unsubstantiated words as reference out of thin air. And, keep in mind this "developer" you speak of shows nothing convincing at all and mainly refers to the politics surrounding it. Not to mention anyone can be a dev for it since it's open source.
I bet can show you a link saying Postgre sucks for every MySQL sucks link you throw my way. What's that prove in the end? Especially if the people spouting of in the links don't have a clue? So, lets get this party started...
After years of using them both, I have had much fewer problems out of MySQL. Backups and restores, even the complex binary ones done with LVM have gone mostly without issues. I can't say the same with PostgreSQL. I've had MySQL problems for sure, but I seem to run into PostgreSQL problems with far more frequency over things that really shouldn't have been problems in the first place.
Clickety[^]
Now, in regards to your point, do you even have any data to prove Postgre is faster for your scenario or is this just a guesstimate? Can you share some findings or at least point to something with substance? Otherwise, I'll never be convinced, sorry that's just my nature. I prefer facts.
I'd also suggest you check those connections and not just show the support team the queries (I don't know your situation, but I do know Yahoo has more traffic than you do), but if you don't use persistent connections you get out of it what you don't know about it.
And MySQL does do clusters, just not as well as say Oracle. And yeah, it has its faults, but so does any RDBMS. I've been using MySQL for years and I can tell you most people's claims are non-substantiated when they say it sucks simply because they just don't know MySQL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only 15? Strange!
I did a client/server/DB control and monitoring setup (not www related) for a company and the DB server averages about 400 connections during work hours with an average one INSERT per 10 seconds per instrument connection and about about 2 dozen monitoring clients doing SELECTs, simple and complex, on average every 30 seconds. The DB server handled around 2 million queries per days. The DB server was MySQL and it handled it gracefully, no monster hardware required, no clustering required!
Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
I choose to only use flat files and program COBOL on IBM mainframes.
[I have actually done neither COBOL or IBM mainframes]
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego.
|
|
|
|
|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: I choose to only use flat files and program COBOL on IBM mainframes.
Except, what about the performance penalties of \r\n???!!!  
|
|
|
|
|
Mainframes rock.... *cough*
It is surprising how many companies still use mainframes. I even had to create a WCF service that interfaces with a mainframe. The mainframe drops files in a specific location, windows service picks them up and allows access through a WCF service endpoint. Gotta love old technology!
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto!
Why would anyone still use an MS database except for legacy applications?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
