|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 4723455 wrote: Why would anyone still use an MS database except for legacy applications?
Because their boss tells them to? It's why I did it, even though I wouldn't use SQL Server for my own projects, a pay check is a good reason IMO. 
|
|
|
|
|
Because MS SQL Server is faster and more flexible. It supports more functionality and data types (spatial). It more scalable, so when this little prototype project gets 20 million users next month, it will handle it. I can easily partition SQL Server tables. SQL Server is much more secure, but still open to more protocols and endpoints (Have you seen using SQL Server Data Services to query and update data using https, without having any remote persistant connection to the database? Awesome.) MySQL has no BI or reporting capabilities. SQL Server also has ability to extend procedures and code using a more appropriate language (like .Net) when needed. SQL Server has asynchronous queue handling (Broker Services) for processing less-critical non-transactional updates.
Basically, if ISAM is what you want and all you need, feel free to use the MySQL toy. When you need grownup relational databases, go with SQL Server.
|
|
|
|
|
mharr wrote: Because MS SQL Server is faster and more flexible.
I stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had a clue of what you're talking about right after this line.
mharr wrote: It supports more functionality and data types (spatial).
Yup, we can stop right here folks. Your post is a waste of time, but just for the heck of it...
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/mysql-spatial-datatypes.html[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are other DBs around. Some other solution will also do a fine job. 
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. I object to crumpets not being included in this survey too. They are better than any database. Great with butter.
(KarstenK, the survey was about what versions of SQL Server you use, not what database you use. It is useful to know how rapidly new versions of SQL Server are being adopted. This is a Microsoft site afterall with plenty of SQL Server related advertising.)
p.s. I don't use SQL Server. MySQL here.
p.p.s It seems the survey has changed before I got here. My point still stands though.
|
|
|
|
|
I like to be a little stupid in not playing such "politics", because I hate them.
I dont want to glue to something, if there are better alternatives.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: I dont want to glue to something, if there are better alternatives.
That just makes you wise. So, just be happy you don't belong to the other camp.
|
|
|
|
|
It is a Microsoft SQL Server survey.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote: It is a Microsoft SQL Server survey.
Yeah, I was more so referring to him be able to go against the grain 'round these parts where MS is the way, the truth, and the light, and the only way to get to, um, well, Bill G maybe?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
