Re: [tlug] MySQL vs Oracle

[Jonathan Q <jq@example.com>]

Jean-Christian Imbeault (jean_christian@example.com) wrote:

> 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.

Oracle is probably the most robust database out there.  It is not,
however, known for its speed.  A tank is bulletproof, but not
about to win at Le Mans  :-)

MySQL is pretty good, and it's the fastest thing around, but
that speed does come at the expense of some bulletproofing.

If MySQL isn't bulletproof enough, go with PostgresQL.  We use
Oracle mostly for the historical reason that back when we started,
there wasn't an open source database that delivered its level of
reliability and scalability or anything like it.  That was then,
this now, and if we weren't already using Oracle I rather expect
we would go with PostgresQL.  The difference between them would
not justify the cost.  PostgresQL would be more than sufficient.
At the same time, the difference between them is also judged
to not justify the cost of a migration away from Oracle and onto
PostgresQL.

For database-backed websites, MySQL is generally the weapon of
choice because of its speed.  Our new webmail system (now
in staff beta; secret public beta coming Real Soon Now :-)
uses a MySQL backend and it works great.  

I've seen some comparisons on MySQL's web site (don't have
an exact link now, sorry) that seemed fairly even-handed
in discussing MySQL, PostgresQL, and proprietary databases
(may have mentioned Oracle specifically, can't recall).

You might also want to read this Freshmeat editorial
on open source databases:

http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/426/

Jonathan