Choosing a database

Need help determining which one

[eWhisper]

I know very little about DBs, and in the process of doing a bit of research for which one would be best for us. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

We are going to be installing a DB to run a lot of corporate info. The db will be custom written. It's not enough info to mess with high end oracle servers, but not sure how much a low end one can hold. As this is corporate info, they aren't worried about the overall cost (under $15-20k) so jumping right to open source isn't the issue.

Some of the info will need to be exported to run on quickbooks and some other hr software that runs well with access or excel (and it looks like it would be easy to make a translation program from mysql to excel to import into these programs).

The db info will be propegated by multiple offices hooked up through a VPN, but only analyzed/modified at the headquarters.

Sequal server and mysql seem to be the best two choices.

Can anyone point me to articles comparing these two (I've looked around - and am getting swamped by the sheer info on dbs since I don't know much about them), or give their own info about which one is a better solution and why?

Thank you very much,
eWhisper

[txbakers]

If you're in a corporate environment and can afford the training and support, go with MSSQL.

There is more paid consultant help available for MSSQL.

I don't have the money or the time to learn something as complex as MSSQL so I use mySQL and haven't been happier. There are a few things I can't do, but I work around them.

Both are good, mySQL is simpler.

But there are more choices as well: sybase, DB2, etc.

[shasan]

Yeah, if you're not worried about costs, the paid consultants and the support for MS-SQL would probably win out over MySQL.

And it's not like you're looking for blazing transactional speed either. MS-SQL, (aside from being a Microsoft product) should do you fine.

[plumsauce]

MSSQL will still give you blazing transactional
speeds. Does mysql even do transactions?

[txbakers]

Does mysql even do transactions?

yes

[eWhisper]

Thanks for the input.

As Oracle is very insistant on buying PeopleSoft right now, might have to wait for the dust to settle to finish deciding.

[bakedjake]

All of the databases are good at something.

I'll add another vote for MSSQL if you have some cash to throw around. If you're doing a ton of data transformation in and out of the database, MSSQL can be a really big help. The DTS wizard is solid, intuitive, and gives you a great preview mode before you hit the commit button.

On the free side, I've always been partial to mySQL and postgreSQL.

[FourDegreez]

I'll toss in my recommendation for PostgreSQL, as well. If you've got a Unix-like OS on hand, this link should get you up and running: [oreilly.com ]

Postgres provides almost the same functionality as Oracle, and of course it is open-source. I've found it very straight-forward and easy to use, and from what I read it is more stable and feature-rich than MySQL. You would be doing yourself a disservice if you did not consider it.

[postgresql.org ]

[chris_jt]

My 2 cents...
I DBA both MS-SQL2000 and Oracle9i. My first choice for a website data architecture is MS-SQL. It's by far easier to administer over Oracle. What I like most about it, is the relatively simple way to create scheduled jobs for the SQL Agent. This comes in handy for automating back-ups and data table clean-ups.(Removing expired memberships, archiving old data, etc.) AND... you can also get SQL2000 to "talk" to an Oracle data server if you have an extensive architecture. The GUI's are also straight forward, and the accompanying "Books online" help info can teach you just about everything you need to know.
Aside from Oracle being a memory hog and more difficult to manage, it's very robust! But most websites don't really need a heavy hitter like Oracle. I only use Oracle if there is a mass amount of data processing needing to be done in real time. Most of the time, though, MS-SQL can do just fine if you have a good maintenance plan put into place.
The downside of both... EXPENSIVE LICENSING.
I don't have any experience with MySQL, but I do see it being used quite a bit, especially with non-MS web technologies. I also wouldn't discount MySQL as a viable part of your data architecture plan.

[txbakers]

My personal opinion is that the best, most robust, most secure database is the DB2/400 on an AS/400 (now called iSeries from IBM).

Never been hacked, never had a virus. The machine is designed with one purpose in mind - to store data. The operating system IS the database and the database IS the operating system.

[chris_jt]

Wouldn't argue that... afterall... MS has had more exposure to attack simply because of the exposure. But there is a reality in ease of use based on support resouces. DB2 is considerbly legacy technology and not a foundational resource for a robust architecture. The most likely reason for it's cause is the fact that it's too old to be a consideration as a viable option. I'll put a twist on that though. Like bell-bottoms... old might very well make it's way back into becoming a supportive fad. And to reverset that... fads do wear out. As with any argument in technology though... it really depends on what you want to do... what you have to do it with and how important it is to keep up with advancing change. (technology-wise... change kills much) What is good today might be considered bad, even stupid, by tomorrow's standards.

[raywood]

I don't know much about mySQL, but i've read that it is a file based system with a clever SQL language interface. Unfortunately, I don't think it has stored procedures or user defined functions. On every serious business app I have ever done these two features were essential. Correct me if I'm wrong. I seriously considered using mySQL on a recent project until I read that info. Is it true?
ray

[txbakers]

stored procedures are available in 5.0 which is still in Beta. They will be ready for production within the year most likely.