× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



On 6/21/05, Knezevic, Mihael <m.knezevic@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Not only that, but open source and low cost databases like
> > MySQL will be
> > > replacing SQL Server at the low end.
> >
> > OMG!  ROTFL  With the advent of that latest and greatest, subselects
> > and stored procedures MySQL leaps to where any widely used
> > commercially available relational database has been for years.
> >
> 
> perhaps. perhaps not. but you should not look at the features of the database 
> but for the requirements of its usage and at its costs.
> 
> and one thing i do know is that we use here multiple MS SQL Servers and that 
> those could be easily replaced with MySql servers without loosing any 
> performance. what i want to say is that most people who are using an MS SQL 
> Server never needed anything like it and could very well go with a MySql 
> server.
> 
> the reason it ain't that way is mostly political.
> 

SQLServer has been no charge for me so far.  The desktop version I
have on my PC was downloaded free from MS.  And the shared hosters I
use like GoDaddy.com dont charge for the first sql server database. 
That is a bit of a hassle when I have multiple web applications at the
same domain name - you have to make sure the table names dont clash.

The advantage of using sql server in .net code is you get better
dataset functionality.  As I understand it, to change from sqlserver
to mysql in .NET code you have to actually change your code - use the
MySqlCommand class in place of the SqlCommand class.  You can code
initially using the generic whatever classes, but you lose some data
set functionality.

Why would an enterprise decide to use MySql instead of SQLServer for
.NET applications?   The cost per employee using sql server must be a
tiny fraction of what that employee costs the employer per year. 
Arguably, using sql server will increase the productivity of the
employee because the application software will have more
functionality, was easier for the programmer to develop.

-Steve


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.