hockeypFeF.net

"ColdFusion, Linux, Virtualization, and other topics."

Netflix

1408: Theatrical Version

Calendar

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Archives By Subject

Ajax (1) [RSS]

CFEclipse (1) [RSS]

Coldfusion (18) [RSS]

Flex (1) [RSS]

Mac (1) [RSS]

Misc (6) [RSS]

Virtualization (1) [RSS]

VPN (1) [RSS]

Wii (2) [RSS]

Zimbra (1) [RSS]

MSSQL vs MySQL

Posted At : April 1, 2008 1:08 PM
Related Categories: MySQL,MSSQL

I just started a new job and we are currently using MS Access as our database. Yikes!!! Anyways, I have used MySQL in the past, but I was wondering should I give MSSQL a look?

What are the advantages of MSSQL over MySQL, or vice versa?

What are the disadvantages of MSSQL over MySQL, or vice versa?

Let the debate begin!

Comments (10) | 344 Views

Comments

[Add Comment]

Going with MSSQL locks you into Microsoft to some degree. MSSQL is a bit harder to setup.

On the other hand MSSQL support for more enterprise-y features like stored procedures is a bit better.

My recommendation is MYSQL unless you need a feature that you can only find in MSSQL.

# Posted By Terremce Ryan | 4/1/08 1:44 PM

I agree with Terry, if the company is using MS Access right now, MySQL would be a nice jump up for them without the associated MSSQL licensing costs.

# Posted By Phil Duba | 4/1/08 2:21 PM

Thanks for the responses. Besides the price, any other big differences?

# Posted By Chris | 4/1/08 2:31 PM

If budget we not an issue, I think I would go with MSSQL. As a developer, i really like Microsoft's enterprise development tools, ERD software and general easy of database set up.

That said, if I am on a tight budget, or if i am more interested in staying free of licensing both the RDBMS AND the Operating System, I would go with MySQL, even if I was goign to run it on Windows, because that always frees me to switch to Linux, or Mac, or any other OS that MySQL will run on. And MySQL has good developer tools as well.

# Posted By Jason Dean | 4/1/08 2:32 PM

how many unique users do you have? mssql is very expensive if you follow their license. it is a per unique user. that means if joe only connects once, that joe is a license fee. that is unless you buy per cpu.. and per cpu means that hyperthreading is times 2 for each chip. if you have a dual core ship with hyperthreading, thats 4 cpu's... at my enterprise cost of $65K/cpu.. thats about $260kbefore taxes.

you probably get my point. mysql is the better way to go if you are using access today.

# Posted By shag | 4/1/08 3:19 PM

@shag,

I would say that you are way off on your pricing.

See this link fer reference: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/editionspric...

1. I assume that Chris' question is about a web application. Therefore, Client Access Licenses are not needed. Microsoft employs a per-processor license for these types of apps.

2. Chris did not say anything about need the Enterprise version of either package. My guess is, if they are using Access now, then SQL Server 2005 Standard will suffice for his migration.

3. Even if he did need the Enterprise version, it is not $65,000 per CPU is is $24,000/ Physical processor, AND they only charge per physcial processor, not per core. But since he probably only needs standard, then it would be $6000/processor. Still not cheap, but not $260,000.

Shag, i am not trying to start an argument, I just felt that your numbers were mistaken. I do definitely agree that MySQL is a more frugal solution. I was simply stating that I prefer to work with MSSQL where I can 9When someone else is paying for it).

# Posted By Jason Dean | 4/1/08 4:23 PM

No one has mentioned the very easy to use MS Access to MSSQL migration wizards. That's why I would go with MSSQL.

# Posted By Michael De Jonghe | 4/1/08 7:21 PM

If it is running OK now on Access, and a 4Gig limit for the size of the entire database would not be a problem, you may want to consider the free MSSQL 2K5 Express edition. It is a nice small package, and provides a great "growth path" from Access all the way up to Enterprise. I use it to start all my small "brocure-ware" projects, knowing I can easily upgrade it later.

# Posted By Troy Allen | 4/2/08 11:33 AM

The problem I see with Express is that there is no built in backup and you are limited to the cpu and memory. Otherwise I think it would work. It works great for development.

# Posted By Chris | 4/2/08 12:32 PM

i suggest postgres!
i use it with cf. no problems. never.

# Posted By Roberto | 5/7/08 5:23 PM

[Add Comment]