Re: oracle - mysql comparison

afilonov_at_yahoo.com (Alex Filonov) wrote in message news:<336da121.0407131327.363b8e5a_at_posting.google.com>...
> joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734.0407121512.779de651_at_posting.google.com>...
> > afilonov_at_yahoo.com (Alex Filonov) wrote in message news:<336da121.0407120722.70d69490_at_posting.google.com>...
> > > Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1089413320.371216_at_yasure>...
> > > > Alex Filonov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>No comparison and you have missed the most important questions you
> > > > >>should be concerned about unless you are running a hotdog stand.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mysql.com
> > > >
> > > > Not exactly the same thing as opening a Level 1 TAR.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know all details of MySQL support, but I think you can get pretty
> > > good support, including phone hotline, for the price comparable with the
> > > price of Oracle support.
> > >
> > > > > Being open source product doesn't mean "not supported". You can buy
> > > > > support contract.
> > > >
> > > > True. But being available 7x24 and able to support you in the way
> > > > Oracle support does requires paying money: And lots of it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure. Oracle support is not cheap either.
> > >
> > > > >>2. How do we recover transactions that occur between the last backup
> > > > >> and the time when the system fails?
> > > > >
> > > > > There is limited crush recovery.
> > > >
> > > > Compared with Oracle ... very limited. And it is the issues related
> > > > to Murphy's Law that are most important to consider.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Judging by industy experience (Yahoo! and Google are both using MySQL
> > > on a big scale), things aren't that bad...
> >
> > They are if you care about transactions and consistency. Yahoo and
>
> This sarcasm is obsolete. MySQL has pretty decent transactional support.
> As for consistency (I suppose you mean read-only), it's implemented in
> ProgreSQL, another Open Source DB engine. BTW, other commercial RMBDS

It's PostgreSQL, sorry.

> (DB2, MSSQL) don't have read-only consistency and sell pretty well at that.
>
> > Google don't have to. <sarcasm> If you miss a web page here or there,
> > so what? Lose a sale in the middle, who cares, the customer will call
> > if he's unhappy, soon enough. Mailing lists? Blame it all on spam
> > filters.</sarcasm>
> >
>
> Well, commercial companies are using the tool successfully, making tons
> of money. We can grump whatever we want (I'd be happy to see everybody
> using Oracle), but the tool is a commercial success.
>
> > >
> > > Myself, I wouldn't recommend MySQL for critical applications as yet.
> > > But things are moving pretty fast in the Open Source world...
> >
> > Once you build that handbasket, Hell isn't far.
> >
> > jg
Received on Wed Jul 14 2004 - 14:01:20 CDT