MySQL vs. Oracle?

[LuDaCriS66]

Can anyone list the general differences between using MySQL vs SQL*Plus in Oracle?

I know some things like how MySQL doesn't have views and that Oracle should be able to handle larger databases. What about in the actual coding and such?

 

[Haircut]

Well, MySQL doesn't have stored procedures (although I believe they are coming in the next version)
So most of the stuff you do in Oracle PL/SQL wouldn't be possible in MySQL.

In terms of SQL then they can both do the ANSI standard stuff, Oracle has things like START WITH and CONNECT BY PRIOR (plus regular expression queries when Oracle 10g comes out) that MySQL doesn't have.
I believe you can't use in-line views in your SQL statements with MySQL either.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Haircut
Well, MySQL doesn't have stored procedures (although I believe they are coming in the next version)
So most of the stuff you do in Oracle PL/SQL wouldn't be possible in MySQL.

In terms of SQL then they can both do the ANSI standard stuff, Oracle has things like START WITH and CONNECT BY PRIOR (plus regular expression queries when Oracle 10g comes out) that MySQL doesn't have.
I believe you can't use in-line views in your SQL statements with MySQL either.

Regexp queries, as in 'WHERE blah REGEXP "^whatever";' ? Mysql has that.

 

[cgott42]

I have a similar question:

I have to put together a proposal to our I.T. department outlining reasons we may want to switch from MS SQL Serveer to Oracle. I've used Oracle before and was very happy with it, but that won't be enough to sell it. I need to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of each (please feel free to give as much detail, as I can use it to add substance to the proposal.

thanks.

 

[glugglug]

MySQL, a FREE DB allows you to have columns where numeric values are stored as binary 32-bit integers or in IEEE floating point formats both of which your CPU is made to work with rapidly and can efficiently compare or do math operations on (like summing in your SQL statement or whatever). Oracle, laughably for such a high profile database with such a large price tag, still to this day requires you to store numbers as strings of BCD digits that the server can't search nearly as efficiently.

Edit: well I suppose you could store them as decimal or other format strings in a VARCHAR2 column, but I think you get my point.

 

[Nothinman]

MySQL is missing many important database features like triggers and stored procedures though, PostgreSQL would be a much better choice to replace MS SQL or Oracle.

I have to put together a proposal to our I.T. department outlining reasons we may want to switch from MS SQL Serveer to Oracle. I've used Oracle before and was very happy with it, but that won't be enough to sell it. I need to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of each (please feel free to give as much detail, as I can use it to add substance to the proposal.

Tell them you want to run the database on Linux and it's impossible to run MS SQL on anything but Windows. Or just the fact that you don't want to be tied to one hardware vendor, Oracle runs on everything so a database can easily be moved from Solaris to HP-UX to Linux without any conversion of the data.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
MySQL is missing many important database features like triggers and stored procedures though, PostgreSQL would be a much better choice to replace MS SQL or Oracle.

I have to put together a proposal to our I.T. department outlining reasons we may want to switch from MS SQL Serveer to Oracle. I've used Oracle before and was very happy with it, but that won't be enough to sell it. I need to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of each (please feel free to give as much detail, as I can use it to add substance to the proposal.

Tell them you want to run the database on Linux and it's impossible to run MS SQL on anything but Windows. Or just the fact that you don't want to be tied to one hardware vendor, Oracle runs on everything so a database can easily be moved from Solaris to HP-UX to Linux without any conversion of the data.

Great point :beer:

 

[RedFox1]

Find some way to tie the switch to some sort of dollar-amount in savings....that's usually much more effective when it comes to convincing management. It gives your manager a nice sound-byte to feed other managers who ask about the changeover.

Originally posted by: cgott42
I have a similar question:

I have to put together a proposal to our I.T. department outlining reasons we may want to switch from MS SQL Serveer to Oracle. I've used Oracle before and was very happy with it, but that won't be enough to sell it. I need to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of each (please feel free to give as much detail, as I can use it to add substance to the proposal.

thanks.

 

[calpha]

From experience, I'd not recommend postgres especially for larger dbs. it's good for small databases, and fairly efficient, but I worked on a gov't project where the database was about 22 Gigs, and postgres was Extremely Extremely slow. Free yes, efficient no. They waited a year, but when the next fiscal budget came out, they upgraded to Oracle on Solaris and have never looked back.

Completely agree that for large projects, Oracle is the way to go. Platform independent is a big feature. ON a project now with MS-SQL Dbs ranging in size from 12-40 GB and the quad server is overloaded. Currently it's a IT problem, not db, because we need more hardware to separate out the load. But the employer mentioned above, ended up with their multiple Oracle Databases much larger then my current project running on a single monster SUN Box, and have still yet to come close to maxing it out. Apples and oranges I know.

 

[glugglug]

MS SQL Server is a lot faster than Oracle and T-SQL (MSSQL) is generally a lot more flexible than PL-SQL (Oracle). Scary, but MS actually did something right for once.

Oracle has 2 major advantages over SQL server:
1. You can run it on a UNIX box
2. Oracle clustering (RAC). Basically multiple computers act as one database server, all sharing the same EMC disk, for greater scalability. From what I've seen so far I'd consider this to be alpha version software though, regardless of whether its officially a finalized release.