Re: Oracle vs MySql Performance

.PS-Sybrand: If ANSI SQL needs to be replaced by special purpose
.proprietary features in order to get _equivalent_ performance that
IMHO
.is a problem. It means that a product doesn't perform without
"tricks" .

If i may respond to this -

Being 'database-independent' used to be a buzz word around 10 years ago. Reasons came from marketing: Merging companies with different RDBMS could easily go together if they are database-independent. It's easier to negotiate with your RDBMS vendor if you have an exit option etc etc. Some products ( like the 4Gl app builder Uniface) had this DBindependence  as a central theme : application code was the same, just a use of a different databasedriver and the application could use an other RDBMS.

Needless to say, Uniface couldn't use these nifty 'proprietary features' of a database. For example, one of such oracle features was the SEQUENCES . With uniface , every technical keyvalue needed to be retrieved and stored in a databasetable, creating a hotspot when users and loadprocesses needed a new primarykeynumber. Compare that to the cached sequences of Oracle. I'm sure that there are more or better examples of this DBindependence approach.

H.
ps :

Isn't mySQL just a front end for a storage engine. Unless I'm mistaken the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the storage engine contribute a lot to the performance.

In my experience, the capabilities of the programmer contribute most to the performance (or lack thereof) of the storage engine. ;-) Received on Wed Aug 22 2007 - 10:05:32 CDT