Re: Oracle vs. MySQL

Thanks

Mohan Kartha wrote:

> In article <39735258.CC6781FA_at_knowledgeinenergy.com>,
> mango <mhammonds_at_knowledgeinenergy.com> wrote:
> > What is the difference between Oracle and MySQL?
> >
>
> The difference between Oracle and MySQL is fairly large:
>
> Oracle supports a robust transaction model allowing session based
> commit, rollback, and savepoint operations, while MySQL does not.
> These transaction operations allow a fine degree of control over data
> concurrency and data integrity.
>
> Oracle also provides replication, parallel processing options, support
> for extensible SQL and object types, stored procedures and packages
> (written and running natively in PL/SQL or Java), row-level locking,
> row and field-level security model, online backup, and a host of other
> advanced database features.
>
> To my knowledge, MySQL does not support most of these features (though
> it may now support row-level locking). Many other enterprise databases
> do not support many of these features either - so though they are
> differentiating features for Oracle, your application may not require
> them. For instance, MS SQL Server did not support row-level locking
> until recently but it has certainly been used to build serious data
> applications.
>
> There is an effort under way to implement a transaction model for MySQL
> but it is not a trivial task.
>
> Transaction control is highly desirable on systems that support
> multiple users who need to see consistent views of data. The
> transaction mechanism allows independent users to see a snapshot of
> data that is protected from changes or updates that may be in process.
>
> Transaction control is also very useful in systems where data integrity
> must be maintained across multiple tables, schemas, or databases - in
> the event that a process fails while modifying data, the entire process
> and all data changes can be "rolled back" on all affected systems
> returning the system to it's prior, consistent state. Transaction
> control across different databases requires support for a "Two-Phase
> commit" process. Oracle has support for this feature, while MySQL does
> not.
>
> Unfortunately transaction control can cost a lot in performance and
> resources since maintaining multiple, disparate 'snapshots' of whole
> sets of data can be a very expensive operation.
>
> MySQL is generally viewed as sufficient for systems that are small,
> only have a few users with limited concurrency requirements, and no
> need for true transaction control.
>
> Most web server based applications attach to a database as a single
> database user and usually perform all select and data manipulation
> operations through this connection. The web server in effect serves to
> multiplex the users requests and serialize them through one or more
> database connections as the same user.
>
> In this type of situation, data concurrency and integrity are at a low
> risk of being impacted, as user load will likely swamp the web server
> before the database experiences a collision.
>
> Considering the new licensing policies for Oracle, I would continue
> MySQL unless you require the advanced enterprise features of Oracle for
> your application. ALso, recognize that there are other alternatives to
> Oracle, for instance IBM DB/2, Informix, Sybase SQL Anywhere and Sybase
> Adaptive Server to name a few.
>
> Good luck
> --
> Mohan C. Kartha MindShare Incorporated
> mohan_at_mindsinc.com
>
> --
> Mohan C. Kartha MindShare Incorporated
> mohan_at_mindsinc.com 210 Nickels Arcade
> http://www.mindsinc.com Ann Arbor, MI 48104
> (313) 509-0472 pager/Vox (734) 995-0915 fax
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Received on Mon Jul 17 2000 - 00:00:00 CEST