Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle vs MySql Performance

Re: Oracle vs MySql Performance

From: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:26:53 +0200
Message-ID: <>

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:05:32 -0700, Helma <> wrote:

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

Actually Oracle has always conformed to ANSI-SQL though to a lower level of the standard.
They should have implemented SQL92 in RBO, but they would have had to rewrite RBO from scratch.

>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 DB-
>independence as a central theme : application code was the same, just
>a use of a different databasedriver and the application could use an
>other RDBMS.

Actually it still is a buzzword. I am currently coping with an application supporting both Oracle and Sqlserver, which shall rename nameless. Oracle is primarily used as a flat file system, no Oracle feature is being used.
>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.

Sqlserver doesn't support sequences. Consequently aforementioned vendor implemented a 'sequence table'. We did away with that in 1989 when Oracle 6 was introduced.

>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. ;-)

Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA
Received on Thu Aug 23 2007 - 13:26:53 CDT

Original text of this message