Thanx Vipul !!!!!!!!!!!!! <HUG> A few things for people who didnt read the articles...
- MySQL's great performance was due mostly to our use of an in-memory query results cache that is new in MySQL 4.0.1. When we tested without this cache, MySQL's performance fell by two-thirds. - SQL Server and MySQL were the easiest to tune, and Oracle9i was the most difficult because it has so many separate memory caches that can be adjusted. - The Oracle and MySQL drivers had the best combination of a complete JDBC feature set and stability. - Overall, Oracle9i and MySQL had the best performance and scalability (see charts, images 1 and 2 in slideshow), with Oracle9i just very slightly ahead of MySQL for most of the run. - MySQL staff took advantage of a feature unique to MySQL among databases tested-the ability to use different database engines on a table-by-table basis. - All the bookstore order tables (which needed to support transactions as per our requirements specification) were configured to use MySQL's InnoDB database engine (which supports transactions, row-level locking and a multiversioning concurrency design also used by Oracle9i). The catalog and user tables did not require transaction support, so MySQL staff configured these tables to use MySQL's lighter-weight, nontransactional MyISAM engine. - All databases were tested on the same hardware platform (Hewlett-Packard Co. provided HP NetServer LT 6000r servers with four 700MHz Xeon CPUs, 2GB of RAM and 24 10,000-rpm 9.1GB Ultra3 SCSI hard drives used for database storage) and the same operating system (Windows 2000 Advanced Server with Service Pack 2). - LOL !!!!.....We invited each database vendor to have staff on-site when their products were tested at PC Magazine's New York lab facility. MySQL and Sybase both accepted and had staffers tune their own databases as they wished. IBM didn't send personnel, but we exchanged several rounds of e-mail with IBM engineers to get tuning advice. Microsoft and Oracle both declined to be involved in the test-with their database servers, we did all tuning ourselves with no vendor input. Damn its almost the whole thing i pasted in here ! So... <ahem> .....does everyone like MySQL now ? regards, Amit. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vipul Mathur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [ilugd]: MySQL evaluation > > Again, I have no clue _why_ or even _if_ Oracle is "faster", just that the > > simpler solution need not be the "better" solution. > > The following links should help: > > Server Databases Clash > http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708&a=23115,00.asp > > MySQL vs Oracle > http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/thread.php3?subject=MySQL+v.s.+Oracle&list=8 > > http://www.innodb.com > > -- > ------------------------------,_,------------------------------------ > Vipul Mathur (O,O) mail at vipulmathur dot org > http://vipulmathur.org/ ( ) vipul at linux-delhi dot org > ------------------------------"-"------------------------------------ > "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." > -- Morpheus, "The Matrix" > > ================================================ > To subscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subscribe in subject header > To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header > Archives are available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org > ================================================= > ================================================ To subscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subscribe in subject header To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header Archives are available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org =================================================
