oracle - mysql comparison

[jonathan]

hey all,

I realize that this question might pop up from time to time, but I
haven't seen it a while and things might of changed, so -

Right now (July 2004) how does mysql stand up in comparison to oracle?
We are seriously considering migrating our multi-processor oracle
system to mysql to save on licensing costs, and would need several
features that mysql may or may not have:

- replication
- archive logging
- interoperabilit y with oracle/database links with oracle
- PL/SQL type language/stored procedures
- roles
- oracle migration scripts/conversion
- embedded java API
- partitioning/tablespace assignment
- import/export tools
- equivalent oracle datatypes
- multi-processor support
- performance (relatively equivalent or better)

In addition, have any oracle DBAs out there gone through the
conversion process between mysql and oracle? If so, what were the
gotchas/catches that you went through? What are features that are
there that you like or feel are missing? I apologize in advance for
the cross-post, but I did want to get as wide a range of opinion as
possible..

Thanks much,

jon

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

jonathan wrote:
[color=blue]
> hey all,
>
> I realize that this question might pop up from time to time, but I
> haven't seen it a while and things might of changed, so -
>
> Right now (July 2004) how does mysql stand up in comparison to oracle?
> We are seriously considering migrating our multi-processor oracle
> system to mysql to save on licensing costs, and would need several
> features that mysql may or may not have:
>
> - replication
> - archive logging
> - interoperabilit y with oracle/database links with oracle
> - PL/SQL type language/stored procedures
> - roles
> - oracle migration scripts/conversion
> - embedded java API
> - partitioning/tablespace assignment
> - import/export tools
> - equivalent oracle datatypes
> - multi-processor support
> - performance (relatively equivalent or better)
>
> In addition, have any oracle DBAs out there gone through the
> conversion process between mysql and oracle? If so, what were the
> gotchas/catches that you went through? What are features that are
> there that you like or feel are missing? I apologize in advance for
> the cross-post, but I did want to get as wide a range of opinion as
> possible..
>
> Thanks much,
>
> jon[/color]

No comparison and you have missed the most important questions you
should be concerned about unless you are running a hotdog stand.

1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?
2. How do we recover transactions that occur between the last backup
and the time when the system fails?
3. Can we recover from object and/or file corruption?

Very simply ... ask your management what the cost is to the company
for every hour the system is unavailable. Then compare that to the
less than $800 cost for licensing Oracle SE1.

But if you truly need EE capabilities such as partitioning then stick
with Oracle. You won't find it anywhere else.

Daniel Morgan

[John Hurley]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

Try a google search "mysql comparison oracle" or similar.

Obviously oracle has financial resources to devote to enhancements
that mysql doesn't but it's amazing to see how far along mysql has
evolved over the last several versions.

[Alex Filonov]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message news:<108933544 2.28909@yasure> ...[color=blue]
> jonathan wrote:
>[color=green]
> > hey all,
> >
> > I realize that this question might pop up from time to time, but I
> > haven't seen it a while and things might of changed, so -
> >
> > Right now (July 2004) how does mysql stand up in comparison to oracle?
> > We are seriously considering migrating our multi-processor oracle
> > system to mysql to save on licensing costs, and would need several
> > features that mysql may or may not have:
> >
> > - replication
> > - archive logging
> > - interoperabilit y with oracle/database links with oracle
> > - PL/SQL type language/stored procedures
> > - roles
> > - oracle migration scripts/conversion
> > - embedded java API
> > - partitioning/tablespace assignment
> > - import/export tools
> > - equivalent oracle datatypes
> > - multi-processor support
> > - performance (relatively equivalent or better)
> >
> > In addition, have any oracle DBAs out there gone through the
> > conversion process between mysql and oracle? If so, what were the
> > gotchas/catches that you went through? What are features that are
> > there that you like or feel are missing? I apologize in advance for
> > the cross-post, but I did want to get as wide a range of opinion as
> > possible..
> >
> > Thanks much,
> >
> > jon[/color]
>
> No comparison and you have missed the most important questions you
> should be concerned about unless you are running a hotdog stand.
>
> 1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?[/color]

mysql.com

Being open source product doesn't mean "not supported". You can buy
support contract.
[color=blue]
> 2. How do we recover transactions that occur between the last backup
> and the time when the system fails?[/color]

There is limited crush recovery.
[color=blue]
> 3. Can we recover from object and/or file corruption?
>
> Very simply ... ask your management what the cost is to the company
> for every hour the system is unavailable. Then compare that to the
> less than $800 cost for licensing Oracle SE1.
>
> But if you truly need EE capabilities such as partitioning then stick
> with Oracle. You won't find it anywhere else.
>
> Daniel Morgan[/color]

[Alex Filonov]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

ttyp32000@yahoo .com (jonathan) wrote in message news:<f05e664d. 0407081323.7b5e 428c@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> hey all,
>
> I realize that this question might pop up from time to time, but I
> haven't seen it a while and things might of changed, so -
>[/color]

Take a good look at http://www.mysql.com
[color=blue]
> Right now (July 2004) how does mysql stand up in comparison to oracle?
> We are seriously considering migrating our multi-processor oracle
> system to mysql to save on licensing costs, and would need several
> features that mysql may or may not have:
>
> - replication[/color]

Limited (comparing to Oracle).
[color=blue]
> - archive logging[/color]

No
[color=blue]
> - interoperabilit y with oracle/database links with oracle[/color]

Not sure. Nothing supported by Oracle. Maybe some 3rd party tools.
[color=blue]
> - PL/SQL type language/stored procedures[/color]

Very limited SQL stored functions and procedures (ANSI 2003?), like in DB2.
[color=blue]
> - roles
> - oracle migration scripts/conversion[/color]

Not sure it's possible. Like with any other databases, you'd need a lot
of manual work.
[color=blue]
> - embedded java API[/color]

No
[color=blue]
> - partitioning/tablespace assignment[/color]

Tablespaces. No partitioned tables in Oracle sense (limited partitioning
for clusters).
[color=blue]
> - import/export tools
> - equivalent oracle datatypes[/color]

Not exactly. Lots of C-type datatypes, no good support for VARCHAR yet.
[color=blue]
> - multi-processor support[/color]

Yes.
[color=blue]
> - performance (relatively equivalent or better)
>[/color]

You wouldn't know till you try... Everybody likes performance of MySQL
with non-transactional tables, but I wouldn't base serious applications
on them...
[color=blue]
> In addition, have any oracle DBAs out there gone through the
> conversion process between mysql and oracle? If so, what were the
> gotchas/catches that you went through? What are features that are
> there that you like or feel are missing? I apologize in advance for
> the cross-post, but I did want to get as wide a range of opinion as
> possible..
>
> Thanks much,
>
> jon[/color]

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

Alex Filonov wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>>No comparison and you have missed the most important questions you
>>should be concerned about unless you are running a hotdog stand.
>>
>>1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?[/color]
>
>
> mysql.com[/color]

Not exactly the same thing as opening a Level 1 TAR.
[color=blue]
> Being open source product doesn't mean "not supported". You can buy
> support contract.[/color]

True. But being available 7x24 and able to support you in the way
Oracle support does requires paying money: And lots of it.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>2. How do we recover transactions that occur between the last backup
>> and the time when the system fails?[/color]
>
> There is limited crush recovery.[/color]

Compared with Oracle ... very limited. And it is the issues related
to Murphy's Law that are most important to consider.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>3. Can we recover from object and/or file corruption?
>>
>>Very simply ... ask your management what the cost is to the company
>>for every hour the system is unavailable. Then compare that to the
>>less than $800 cost for licensing Oracle SE1.
>>
>>But if you truly need EE capabilities such as partitioning then stick
>>with Oracle. You won't find it anywhere else.
>>
>>Daniel Morgan[/color][/color]

Daniel Morgan

[Dusan Bolek]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message news:<108941332 0.371216@yasure >...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?[/color]
> >
> >
> > mysql.com[/color]
>
> Not exactly the same thing as opening a Level 1 TAR.[/color]

However, quite similar comparing to usual processing of a Level 2
iTAR. Sorry couldn't resist. :-)

--
Dusan Bolek

http://www.db-support.com

Email: spambin@seznam. cz
Pls add "Not Guilty" to the subject, otherwise your email will face an
unpleasant end as SPAM.

[Alex Filonov]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

joel-garry@home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734. 0407121512.779d e651@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> afilonov@yahoo. com (Alex Filonov) wrote in message news:<336da121. 0407120722.70d6 9490@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=green]
> > Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message news:<108941332 0.371216@yasure >...[color=darkred]
> > > Alex Filonov wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>No comparison and you have missed the most important questions you
> > > >>should be concerned about unless you are running a hotdog stand.
> > > >>
> > > >>1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mysql.com
> > >
> > > Not exactly the same thing as opening a Level 1 TAR.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > I don't know all details of MySQL support, but I think you can get pretty
> > good support, including phone hotline, for the price comparable with the
> > price of Oracle support.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > > Being open source product doesn't mean "not supported". You can buy
> > > > support contract.
> > >
> > > True. But being available 7x24 and able to support you in the way
> > > Oracle support does requires paying money: And lots of it.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > Sure. Oracle support is not cheap either.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > >>2. How do we recover transactions that occur between the last backup
> > > >> and the time when the system fails?
> > > >
> > > > There is limited crush recovery.
> > >
> > > Compared with Oracle ... very limited. And it is the issues related
> > > to Murphy's Law that are most important to consider.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > Judging by industy experience (Yahoo! and Google are both using MySQL
> > on a big scale), things aren't that bad...[/color]
>
> They are if you care about transactions and consistency. Yahoo and[/color]

This sarcasm is obsolete. MySQL has pretty decent transactional support.
As for consistency (I suppose you mean read-only), it's implemented in
ProgreSQL, another Open Source DB engine. BTW, other commercial RMBDS
(DB2, MSSQL) don't have read-only consistency and sell pretty well at that.
[color=blue]
> Google don't have to. <sarcasm> If you miss a web page here or there,
> so what? Lose a sale in the middle, who cares, the customer will call
> if he's unhappy, soon enough. Mailing lists? Blame it all on spam
> filters.</sarcasm>
>[/color]

Well, commercial companies are using the tool successfully, making tons
of money. We can grump whatever we want (I'd be happy to see everybody
using Oracle), but the tool is a commercial success.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > Myself, I wouldn't recommend MySQL for critical applications as yet.
> > But things are moving pretty fast in the Open Source world...[/color]
>
> Once you build that handbasket, Hell isn't far.
>
> jg[/color]

[VC]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

Hello,

Please see in-line:

"Alex Filonov" <afilonov@yahoo .com> wrote in message
news:336da121.0 407131327.363b8 e5a@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> As for consistency (I suppose you mean read-only), it's implemented in
> ProgreSQL, another Open Source DB engine. BTW, other commercial RMBDS
> (DB2, MSSQL) don't have read-only consistency and sell pretty well at[/color]
that.

Please define 'read-only consistency' and elaborate a bit on why DB2 and
MSSQL don't have it.

Thanks.

VC

[Alex Filonov]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message news:<108941332 0.371216@yasure >...[color=blue]
> Alex Filonov wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>
> >>No comparison and you have missed the most important questions you
> >>should be concerned about unless you are running a hotdog stand.
> >>
> >>1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?[/color]
> >
> >
> > mysql.com[/color]
>
> Not exactly the same thing as opening a Level 1 TAR.
>[/color]

I don't know all details of MySQL support, but I think you can get pretty
good support, including phone hotline, for the price comparable with the
price of Oracle support.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Being open source product doesn't mean "not supported". You can buy
> > support contract.[/color]
>
> True. But being available 7x24 and able to support you in the way
> Oracle support does requires paying money: And lots of it.
>[/color]

Sure. Oracle support is not cheap either.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>2. How do we recover transactions that occur between the last backup
> >> and the time when the system fails?[/color]
> >
> > There is limited crush recovery.[/color]
>
> Compared with Oracle ... very limited. And it is the issues related
> to Murphy's Law that are most important to consider.
>[/color]

Judging by industy experience (Yahoo! and Google are both using MySQL
on a big scale), things aren't that bad...

Myself, I wouldn't recommend MySQL for critical applications as yet.
But things are moving pretty fast in the Open Source world...
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>3. Can we recover from object and/or file corruption?
> >>
> >>Very simply ... ask your management what the cost is to the company
> >>for every hour the system is unavailable. Then compare that to the
> >>less than $800 cost for licensing Oracle SE1.
> >>
> >>But if you truly need EE capabilities such as partitioning then stick
> >>with Oracle. You won't find it anywhere else.
> >>
> >>Daniel Morgan[/color][/color]
>
> Daniel Morgan[/color]

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

> Well, commercial companies are using the tool successfully, making tons[color=blue]
> of money. We can grump whatever we want (I'd be happy to see everybody
> using Oracle), but the tool is a commercial success.[/color]

Based on your definition we should all be impressed by Microsoft
technology too. Commercial success means good sales and marketing
not good technology. Not that the two can't coexist ... but in this
case the success is related to the fact that the tool is free and
little else.

I have yet to see anyone recover from MySQL or PostgreSQL after a
crash without losing transactions: Not once. And if you think you
can ... give me a byte editor and five minutes and I'll be glad to
see if your belief system is valid.

Daniel Morgan

[Joel Garry]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

afilonov@yahoo. com (Alex Filonov) wrote in message news:<336da121. 0407120722.70d6 9490@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message news:<108941332 0.371216@yasure >...[color=green]
> > Alex Filonov wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > >>
> > >>No comparison and you have missed the most important questions you
> > >>should be concerned about unless you are running a hotdog stand.
> > >>
> > >>1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?
> > >
> > >
> > > mysql.com[/color]
> >
> > Not exactly the same thing as opening a Level 1 TAR.
> >[/color]
>
> I don't know all details of MySQL support, but I think you can get pretty
> good support, including phone hotline, for the price comparable with the
> price of Oracle support.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Being open source product doesn't mean "not supported". You can buy
> > > support contract.[/color]
> >
> > True. But being available 7x24 and able to support you in the way
> > Oracle support does requires paying money: And lots of it.
> >[/color]
>
> Sure. Oracle support is not cheap either.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >>2. How do we recover transactions that occur between the last backup
> > >> and the time when the system fails?
> > >
> > > There is limited crush recovery.[/color]
> >
> > Compared with Oracle ... very limited. And it is the issues related
> > to Murphy's Law that are most important to consider.
> >[/color]
>
> Judging by industy experience (Yahoo! and Google are both using MySQL
> on a big scale), things aren't that bad...[/color]

They are if you care about transactions and consistency. Yahoo and
Google don't have to. <sarcasm> If you miss a web page here or there,
so what? Lose a sale in the middle, who cares, the customer will call
if he's unhappy, soon enough. Mailing lists? Blame it all on spam
filters.</sarcasm>
[color=blue]
>
> Myself, I wouldn't recommend MySQL for critical applications as yet.
> But things are moving pretty fast in the Open Source world...[/color]

Once you build that handbasket, Hell isn't far.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.

http://www.autoweek.com/specials/galleries/newm5/pages/index.htm

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

Alex Filonov wrote:
[color=blue]
> Judging by industy experience (Yahoo! and Google are both using MySQL
> on a big scale), things aren't that bad...
>
> Myself, I wouldn't recommend MySQL for critical applications as yet.
> But things are moving pretty fast in the Open Source world...[/color]

You may be correct about where they are moving. But do you know what
Yahoo and Google are using it for?

Because, as you say, I sure wouldn't use it for mission critical data.

Daniel Morgan

[Alex Filonov]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

joel-garry@home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734. 0407121512.779d e651@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> afilonov@yahoo. com (Alex Filonov) wrote in message news:<336da121. 0407120722.70d6 9490@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=green]
> > Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message news:<108941332 0.371216@yasure >...[color=darkred]
> > > Alex Filonov wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>No comparison and you have missed the most important questions you
> > > >>should be concerned about unless you are running a hotdog stand.
> > > >>
> > > >>1. Where to we call for support if there is a problem we can't solve?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mysql.com
> > >
> > > Not exactly the same thing as opening a Level 1 TAR.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > I don't know all details of MySQL support, but I think you can get pretty
> > good support, including phone hotline, for the price comparable with the
> > price of Oracle support.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > > Being open source product doesn't mean "not supported". You can buy
> > > > support contract.
> > >
> > > True. But being available 7x24 and able to support you in the way
> > > Oracle support does requires paying money: And lots of it.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > Sure. Oracle support is not cheap either.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > >>2. How do we recover transactions that occur between the last backup
> > > >> and the time when the system fails?
> > > >
> > > > There is limited crush recovery.
> > >
> > > Compared with Oracle ... very limited. And it is the issues related
> > > to Murphy's Law that are most important to consider.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > Judging by industy experience (Yahoo! and Google are both using MySQL
> > on a big scale), things aren't that bad...[/color]
>
> They are if you care about transactions and consistency. Yahoo and[/color]

This sarcasm is obsolete. MySQL has pretty decent transactional support.
As for consistency (I suppose you mean read-only), it's implemented in
ProgreSQL, another Open Source DB engine. BTW, other commercial RMBDS
(DB2, MSSQL) don't have read-only consistency and sell pretty well at that.
[color=blue]
> Google don't have to. <sarcasm> If you miss a web page here or there,
> so what? Lose a sale in the middle, who cares, the customer will call
> if he's unhappy, soon enough. Mailing lists? Blame it all on spam
> filters.</sarcasm>
>[/color]

Well, commercial companies are using the tool successfully, making tons
of money. We can grump whatever we want (I'd be happy to see everybody
using Oracle), but the tool is a commercial success.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > Myself, I wouldn't recommend MySQL for critical applications as yet.
> > But things are moving pretty fast in the Open Source world...[/color]
>
> Once you build that handbasket, Hell isn't far.
>
> jg[/color]

[VC]

Re: oracle - mysql comparison

Hello,

Please see in-line:

"Alex Filonov" <afilonov@yahoo .com> wrote in message
news:336da121.0 407131327.363b8 e5a@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> As for consistency (I suppose you mean read-only), it's implemented in
> ProgreSQL, another Open Source DB engine. BTW, other commercial RMBDS
> (DB2, MSSQL) don't have read-only consistency and sell pretty well at[/color]
that.

Please define 'read-only consistency' and elaborate a bit on why DB2 and
MSSQL don't have it.

Thanks.

VC