Re: Which SQL is the best for servers?

From: Jerry Stuckle <>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:52:36 -0500
Message-ID: <gnbnim$pnp$>

pg wrote:
> I am involved with a SQL server project. The server would be used in a
> very heavy duty environment, with hundreds of thousands, if not
> millions of database enquiries per minutes.
> The server would run Linux or one of the BSD variant, with at least
> 32GB of RAM. We are not very certain of the hardware specs yet because
> we haven't decided on which SQL to use.
> I know that Oracle, MySQL and PostgreSQL are all designed for heavy
> duty uses.
> And I checked all available online resources for a SQL comparison and
> all I could find is some articles dated 2005 or so !
> So, here's my questions:
> 1. Are there any recent SQL comparison article available?
> 2. Since the server may come with only 32GB of RAM, which SQL can run
> the "leanest" - that is, not a memory hog?
> 3. The server might also become a web-server, which SQL can tie itself
> to the Web-based enquiry they best?
> Please give me your suggestion / opinion. Thank you !!

You also missed DB2, SQL Server and several others.

I don't know of any recent comparison articles, but I've found them to be only worth bragging rights. Whether or not those benchmarks apply to the real world is highly questionable.

The truth is - when you ask a question like this, you'll get plenty of answers, most of them from people who are quite partial to their own database.

There is no one database which is best for everything. What is best for one person is not necessarily best for another. What you need to do is your own evaluation of each product based on your needs.

Yes, it means a lot of work. But if you're going to be hitting it as hard as you say, it's work you need to do yourself.

Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
Received on Mon Feb 16 2009 - 06:52:36 CST

Original text of this message