Re: [cobalt-users] mySQL

["Neil J. Kemp" <guyver@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Well the speed is pretty comparable. Although some of the speeds are
quite different. I'm working on a table with 6953539 rows and 5
columns.

The specs of the machine though are a bit different so it's hard to
compare fairly:

NT server 4 + Backoffice 4.5 = 2 * Pentium 2 450MHz, 512Mb RAM, MS-SQL 7.0 SP1
Linux 2.2.13 = Pentium 2 Celeron 366MHz, 192Mb RAM, MySQL 3.22.30

If I do a select count(*) on the Linux machine the answer comes back
straight away. The NT machine however takes it's sweet time and comes back
about 20 seconds later (!).  This is with exactly the same indexes and
primary keys etc.

Though on select queries (which are more important?) the NT server
FLIES. Average query on indexed stuff WITH sorting comes back in less than
1 second. MySQL sadly takes 4 to 5 seconds. Okay so theres a lot of
difference in the machine speeds which would possibly balance them out.

Oh yeh here's a real plus point for MySQL. My MS-SQL database with that
one table took up 2.9gb of space. After realising that I had the grow set
too large (oops!) It was a more managable (!) 1.2Gb. ;-) MySQL however is
a nice 359Mb. WOW! That's SMALLER than when I had the data originally a
Microsoft Access table. (For the record I did NOT design this
database!!!) ;-)

Conclusion? In my opinion MySQL is looking like it's upto a heavy
workload, but I'll personally stick to MS-SQL. Even though there's that
nice MyODBC driver (thanks to whoever told me about that!) it's just not
as compatible with Visual Studio as the Microsoft stuff naturally would
be. (Or atleast you'd expect it to be) Oh yeh and the GUI on the MS-SQL
(Microsoft Management Console)... although it looks a bit weird REALLY
helps.

But there's also one heck of a cost difference as Jeff pointed out.

--Neil

 On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Manik Surtani wrote:

> do let us know ....... I'm interested ..........
> 
> "Neil J. Kemp" wrote:
> 
> > >>I don't believe there is anyway to access the databases EXCEPT from MySQL
> > >>(local or remote), but I could be wrong as I'm more used to Microsoft SQL
> > >>server 7 (it's MUCH MUCH nicer!)
> > >
> > >And also MUCH MUCH more expensive <smile>.
> > >
> > >Jeff
> >
> > Yeh, but since someone here pointed out about MyODBC I've tried it out and
> > was very impressed! (except I can't seem to get ADO working with it from VB
> > unless I use a DSN..)
> >
> > I've currently got one Microsoft SQL server exporting a 6.9 million row
> > database (that's 3 gigabytes with the indexes) to my Linux MySQL server and
> > I'm curious to see how they compare! ;-) I'll find out in about 5 hours! ;-)
> >
> > --Neil
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cobalt-users mailing list
> > cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
> 
> --
> Manik Surtani
> Chief Technology Officer
> Espada (Pvt.) Ltd.
> http://www.espadanet.com
> ICQ: 853533
> 
>