Re: [tlug] MySQL vs Oracle

[Ryan Shaw <ryan.shaw@example.com>]

If you really need transactions, then Oracle is better than MySQL.
But even in this case, Postgres will give you everything Oracle has,
except for some extremely high-end features that your company won't
pay for anyway unless they have more money than god.

But if this is a website, and not some sophisticated financial app,
speed rather than absolute guarantees against data inconsistency
is probably your main concern. In this case MySQL (sans transactions)
will blow away everything else.

MySQL has some benchmarks on their site that show performance against
Oracle, but these won't help you win an argument against someone with
their head up their ass, as that someone can always imagine some
hypothetical situation which casts the benchmark in a bad light.

I understand how you feel though. I once worked on an app that was
extremely database intensive. We didn't need transactions or
atomicity or any of that but we did need lightning fast inserts
and selects. MySQL was perfect. But we still had to work on a
10-25 times slower Oracle version because "MySQL makes our product 
seem cheap"...

On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 17:03, Matt Doughty wrote:

> This seems to a be a common myth.  Oracle is more robust than alot of the 
> free solutions. Especially in the area of replication/clustering, but there
> is no evidence to support this. I know there are Postgres production servers
> that are 10 million items plus, and I am sure that the same is true for
> MySQL.  You are dealing with a consultant who bought into conventional
> wisdom that is patently false.  Where do such rumors get started? I imagine
> that the oracle marketing dept. has something to do with that.
> 
> --Matt
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 04:22:19PM +0900, Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote:
> > Just had a heated argument with a japanese system consultant. He wouldn't 
> > stop shouting about how Oracle could handle tables with large ammounts of 
> > data (2 million items plus) whereas MySQL qould be slow and therefore we 
> > shouldn't use MySQL on our web site and should instead "thin of the future" 
> > and go with Oracle. I kept asking for "proof" but all I could get was 
> > "everyone knows this, how come you don't?"
> > 
> > I'll be doing a quick search on the net to see if I can find any numbers to 
> > shw that MySQL isn't *that* bad/slow.
> > 
> > I was just wondering if anyone had any quick links to any comparisons 
> > between MySQL and Oracle??
> > 
> > Jc
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
> > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part