mySQL vs Oracle, no problem?

[Jan Olsen]

We're planning an SQL-based solution, possibly mySQL for Windows or
Linux. But some in the organization might favor Oracle.

Are there any particular pitfalls of using mySQL instead of Oracle?

I'm a novice when it comes to evaluting different SQL solutions.

We expect to have maximum 10 million records for our largest table,
and perhaps 50 different small tables of up to 1 million records each.
Uncompressed, the system will use no more than 20 GB. Maximum 100
persons will have access to the system, perhaps using ODBC or a web
interface. Most processes are batch based, but there may be some
manual look-ups, and even fewer manual updates.

Data integrity is important, we have once had an MS Access system with
just 1GB data, and frequently discovered that data became corrupted
when data was accessed/written via the LAN.

If mySQL have similar problems or perform very sluggishly or crashes
freqenutly when compared to Oracle, I guess I can't argue for mySQL...

[Bill Karwin]

Re: mySQL vs Oracle, no problem?

Jan Olsen wrote:[color=blue]
> We're planning an SQL-based solution, possibly mySQL for Windows or
> Linux. But some in the organization might favor Oracle.
>
> Are there any particular pitfalls of using mySQL instead of Oracle?[/color]

Certainly there are some tasks that Oracle products can do, which MySQL
cannot. However, a great majority of projects fall into a category that
both MySQL and Oracle can support successfully. And the price
difference is so great (even assuming you pay for a commercial license
for MySQL) that you should really consider carefully if MySQL can do the
job for you.
[color=blue]
> We expect to have maximum 10 million records for our largest table,
> and perhaps 50 different small tables of up to 1 million records each.
> Uncompressed, the system will use no more than 20 GB. Maximum 100
> persons will have access to the system, perhaps using ODBC or a web
> interface. Most processes are batch based, but there may be some
> manual look-ups, and even fewer manual updates.[/color]

Try reading through the case studies on the MySQL.com web site:

http://www.mysql.com/it-resources/case-studies/

There are quite a few real-world installations that use MySQL for data
volume similar to what you're describing, and where stability is crucial.

No database system can work magic, however. Both Oracle and MySQL--and
any other RDBMS--require good design, good administration practices, and
regular maintenance to keep things running well.

Regards,
Bill K.

[jerry gitomer]

Re: mySQL vs Oracle, no problem?

Jan Olsen wrote:[color=blue]
> We're planning an SQL-based solution, possibly mySQL for Windows or
> Linux. But some in the organization might favor Oracle.
>
> Are there any particular pitfalls of using mySQL instead of Oracle?
>
> I'm a novice when it comes to evaluting different SQL solutions.
>
> We expect to have maximum 10 million records for our largest table,
> and perhaps 50 different small tables of up to 1 million records each.
> Uncompressed, the system will use no more than 20 GB. Maximum 100
> persons will have access to the system, perhaps using ODBC or a web
> interface. Most processes are batch based, but there may be some
> manual look-ups, and even fewer manual updates.
>
> Data integrity is important, we have once had an MS Access system with
> just 1GB data, and frequently discovered that data became corrupted
> when data was accessed/written via the LAN.
>
> If mySQL have similar problems or perform very sluggishly or crashes
> freqenutly when compared to Oracle, I guess I can't argue for mySQL...[/color]

Jan,

The key issue you have to resolve is your organization's
priorities. It sounds as though data integrity is the number
one priority. If, when using product X, your database crashes
and you can recover within a satisfactory time (from a business
point of view) that product meets your requirements.

I can't speak for MySQL since I don't know it well enough to
comment.

When it comes to Oracle the ability to take hot back ups used in
conjunction with transaction logging allows very fast recovery.
If needed, and the budget permits, it is possible to set up a
24 by 7 Oracle setup that will probably by 100% available and
will definitely meet 99.999% availability. With Oracle it isn't
cheap, but it is doable.

HTH

Jerry

[Jan]

Re: mySQL vs Oracle, no problem?

In all of this, how does MS SQL compare with mySQL or Oracle? I suppose
perhaps no better than mySQL?

jerry gitomer wrote:[color=blue]
> Jan Olsen wrote:[color=green]
> > We're planning an SQL-based solution, possibly mySQL for Windows or
> > Linux. But some in the organization might favor Oracle.
> >
> > Are there any particular pitfalls of using mySQL instead of Oracle?
> >
> > I'm a novice when it comes to evaluting different SQL solutions.
> >
> > We expect to have maximum 10 million records for our largest table,
> > and perhaps 50 different small tables of up to 1 million records each.
> > Uncompressed, the system will use no more than 20 GB. Maximum 100
> > persons will have access to the system, perhaps using ODBC or a web
> > interface. Most processes are batch based, but there may be some
> > manual look-ups, and even fewer manual updates.
> >
> > Data integrity is important, we have once had an MS Access system with
> > just 1GB data, and frequently discovered that data became corrupted
> > when data was accessed/written via the LAN.
> >
> > If mySQL have similar problems or perform very sluggishly or crashes
> > freqenutly when compared to Oracle, I guess I can't argue for mySQL...[/color]
>
> Jan,
>
> The key issue you have to resolve is your organization's
> priorities. It sounds as though data integrity is the number
> one priority. If, when using product X, your database crashes
> and you can recover within a satisfactory time (from a business
> point of view) that product meets your requirements.
>
> I can't speak for MySQL since I don't know it well enough to
> comment.
>
> When it comes to Oracle the ability to take hot back ups used in
> conjunction with transaction logging allows very fast recovery.
> If needed, and the budget permits, it is possible to set up a
> 24 by 7 Oracle setup that will probably by 100% available and
> will definitely meet 99.999% availability. With Oracle it isn't
> cheap, but it is doable.
>
> HTH
>
> Jerry[/color]

[jerry gitomer]

Re: mySQL vs Oracle, no problem?

Jan wrote:[color=blue]
> In all of this, how does MS SQL compare with mySQL or Oracle? I suppose
> perhaps no better than mySQL?
>
> jerry gitomer wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Jan Olsen wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>We're planning an SQL-based solution, possibly mySQL for Windows or
>>>Linux. But some in the organization might favor Oracle.
>>>
>>>Are there any particular pitfalls of using mySQL instead of Oracle?
>>>
>>>I'm a novice when it comes to evaluting different SQL solutions.
>>>
>>>We expect to have maximum 10 million records for our largest table,
>>>and perhaps 50 different small tables of up to 1 million records each.
>>>Uncompressed , the system will use no more than 20 GB. Maximum 100
>>>persons will have access to the system, perhaps using ODBC or a web
>>>interface. Most processes are batch based, but there may be some
>>>manual look-ups, and even fewer manual updates.
>>>
>>>Data integrity is important, we have once had an MS Access system with
>>>just 1GB data, and frequently discovered that data became corrupted
>>>when data was accessed/written via the LAN.
>>>
>>>If mySQL have similar problems or perform very sluggishly or crashes
>>>freqenutly when compared to Oracle, I guess I can't argue for mySQL...[/color]
>>
>>Jan,
>>
>>The key issue you have to resolve is your organization's
>>priorities. It sounds as though data integrity is the number
>>one priority. If, when using product X, your database crashes
>>and you can recover within a satisfactory time (from a business
>>point of view) that product meets your requirements.
>>
>>I can't speak for MySQL since I don't know it well enough to
>>comment.
>>
>>When it comes to Oracle the ability to take hot back ups used in
>>conjunction with transaction logging allows very fast recovery.
>> If needed, and the budget permits, it is possible to set up a
>>24 by 7 Oracle setup that will probably by 100% available and
>>will definitely meet 99.999% availability. With Oracle it isn't
>>cheap, but it is doable.
>>
>>HTH
>>
>>Jerry[/color]
>
>[/color]

Jan,

If you are talking about a "You bet your company" database you
are probably best off using Oracle or DB2 and getting one of the
more expensive service agreements. The reason is that sooner or
later you will have problems that require substantial vendor
support. I have experience with all three companies and, IMHO,
Oracle and IBM both have better support than Microsoft.

HTH
Jerry