Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Way off-topic, but yes, MSDE is just SQL server with a 2Gb database size limitI have just lined it up against SQL Anywhere 5.5 and it looks pretty good.
For a free sql server it looks pretty good. Am I being deceived??
I have just lined it up against SQL Anywhere 5.5 and it looks pretty good.
For a free sql server it looks pretty good. Am I being deceived??
I have just lined it up against SQL Anywhere 5.5 and it looks pretty good.
For a free sql server it looks pretty good. Am I being deceived??
Sorry to reply to my own post, but if anyone wants actualIdiot.
Then don't do it.Clifford Heath wrote:
Idiot.
Sorry to reply to my own post,
As opposed to a closed source white goods software groupie ?but if anyone wants actual
factual data instead of the ignorant blitherings of an open
source nutcase,
I'm sure we all have a need for such big numbers.they might wish to visit www.tpc.org - the
Transaction Processing Performance Council, the folk who
manage the world-standard TP benchmarks.
The system with the 2nd highest TPC benchmark runs MS SQL Server,
at over 3/4 of a *million* TPC transactions per minute,
I'd like to see you be realistic.each
involving queries and updates over up to a dozen large tables.
The product gets used on multi-terabyte databases with hundreds
or thousands of open concurrent transactions and dozens of
databases, on hardware supporting mission-critical systems
(banking, etc). I'd like to see MySQL do that, huh!
Sure it is, shame about the OS hosting it however.MSSQL is also the software filling *all 25 top places* in the
TPC/$ benchmark, making it the most cost-efficient DBMS.
No that's unfair!Microsoft might deserve to be bashed for some things they've
done,
Why don't you send them a medal, along with your MICROS~1 groupie clubbut though MSSQL is far from faultless, it's b*%^ good
and MS deserves to be commended on it.
So they bought Sybase, why didn't they just *steal* it like they stealAnd you can't even
credit it to Sybase (the product MS bought), as MS have
rewritten the core several times since then.
Please state the actual *standard* you're using for that statement ?MySQL OTOH isn't even SQL compliant
When it comes to toys, you sound like an expert, fortunately you haveand suffers a raft of
problems I won't even begin to describe here - it's a toy.
Clifford Heath wrote:
Idiot.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but if anyone wants actual
factual data instead of the ignorant blitherings of an open
source nutcase, they might wish to visit www.tpc.org - the
Transaction Processing Performance Council, the folk who
manage the world-standard TP benchmarks.
The system with the 2nd highest TPC benchmark runs MS SQL Server,
at over 3/4 of a *million* TPC transactions per minute, each
involving queries and updates over up to a dozen large tables.
The product gets used on multi-terabyte databases with hundreds
or thousands of open concurrent transactions and dozens of
databases, on hardware supporting mission-critical systems
(banking, etc). I'd like to see MySQL do that, huh!
MSSQL is also the software filling *all 25 top places* in the
TPC/$ benchmark, making it the most cost-efficient DBMS.
Microsoft might deserve to be bashed for some things they've
done, but though MSSQL is far from faultless, it's b*%^ good
and MS deserves to be commended on it. And you can't even
credit it to Sybase (the product MS bought), as MS have
rewritten the core several times since then.
MySQL OTOH isn't even SQL compliant and suffers a raft of
problems I won't even begin to describe here - it's a toy.
Its a toy in your sense to you and many others because they can't insure
them self against something they know nothing about,and also no consultant
will recommend something that they can't make money off.
Now you need to explain why oracle is used for most transaction databases
and not MSSQL.
I think your friends were paid out to report,strange how the site also
runs
M$ as a platform and is very slow to respond,we all know about the myths
that get around when it comes to database products.
No money in it,it dose not exist because noone has security left or
warranty
or support!
Its time to grow up Clifford and be a man,take some weight on your
shoulders
and see if you can work out a problem or work around a bug without having
a
corporation behind you.
Time to grow a brain,and not learn from a text book or a website which
tells
to how to think
MySql will be the first to tell you what it can do and can't and who would
you listen to,someone who is getting paid or someone who plays with it as
a
toy,yes a toy and a love.
Mysql charge for this to make you feel at home,now your only problem is
that
nobody uses Mysql.
You might as well spend your life in an institution now as you will have
to
think before acting
You are the fucking idiot.
"Clifford Heath" <cjh_nospam@managesoft.com> wrote in message
news:1067578539.577232@excalibur.osa.com.au...
Clifford Heath wrote:
Idiot.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but if anyone wants actual
factual data instead of the ignorant blitherings of an open
source nutcase, they might wish to visit www.tpc.org - the
Transaction Processing Performance Council, the folk who
manage the world-standard TP benchmarks.
The system with the 2nd highest TPC benchmark runs MS SQL Server,
at over 3/4 of a *million* TPC transactions per minute, each
involving queries and updates over up to a dozen large tables.
The product gets used on multi-terabyte databases with hundreds
or thousands of open concurrent transactions and dozens of
databases, on hardware supporting mission-critical systems
(banking, etc). I'd like to see MySQL do that, huh!
MSSQL is also the software filling *all 25 top places* in the
TPC/$ benchmark, making it the most cost-efficient DBMS.
Microsoft might deserve to be bashed for some things they've
done, but though MSSQL is far from faultless, it's b*%^ good
and MS deserves to be commended on it. And you can't even
credit it to Sybase (the product MS bought), as MS have
rewritten the core several times since then.
MySQL OTOH isn't even SQL compliant and suffers a raft of
problems I won't even begin to describe here - it's a toy.
I have created several open source projects myself, contributed toAs opposed to a closed source white goods software groupie ?
No-one said we do, but it's quite clear that Cyborg's statements wereI'm sure we all have a need for such big numbers.
Hah! that's a laugh, coming from you.I'd like to see you be realistic.
Read the TPC website. The benchmark includes and requires full systemSuch a system would require astronomical amounts of money,
I can't disagree with that - I much prefer to avoid it and stay on LinuxSure it is, shame about the OS hosting it however.
Could, and would.Anyone could have done that!
Ahem. Ever heard of ANSI? On reading more, I find that MySQL has recentlyPlease state the actual *standard* you're using for that statement ?
If you want me to believe that, show evidence that you've visited theI think...
I don't know anyone at the TPC, or anyone who's ever built or testedyour friends were paid out to report
One last response, and I'll leave this off-topic thread alone.
I dislike MS intensely, and feel ashamed to work in an industry which
has foisted such atrocious wastage on the world. However, I am pragmatic
about trying to make my little corner of this industry less incompetent,
and I'm also willing to use *both* my eyes and offer congratulations
where it's due.
As opposed to a closed source white goods software groupie ?
I have created several open source projects myself, contributed to
others, and gratefully use many others, so it's clear you don't have
a clue what you're talking about, regarding either me or MSSQL.
I'm sure we all have a need for such big numbers.
No-one said we do, but it's quite clear that Cyborg's statements were
flat wrong. MSSQL isn't "always crashing" - in fact I've never seen or
heard of a crash attributed to MSSQL, and haven't experienced data
corruption either. There were the worms, but they're possible in any
software (more below). The commercial DBMS vendors whose products could
negligently lose data were sued out of existence in the 1980's.
I'd like to see you be realistic.
Hah! that's a laugh, coming from you.
Such a system would require astronomical amounts of money,
Read the TPC website. The benchmark includes and requires full system
details, enough for anyone to reproduce the reported results, and requires
complete pricing, including maintenance costs over 5 years. Some quite
small
systems are benchmarked, not just the behemoth clusters, and the $/TPC are
represented for them all. See if you can suggest any way the benchmark
could be made more realistic, Mr. Realistic...
Sure it is, shame about the OS hosting it however.
I can't disagree with that - I much prefer to avoid it and stay on Linux
when I can (which is nearly all the time, even when developing for MS).
You talk about being realistic - now *you* try: Convince me that, in the
absence of MS, the world *wouldn't* have chosen a different player to
form a monopoly, and that the monopoly they chose would have done a
significantly better job of avoiding the problems we have with MS.
Dreaming about what such a monopolist *could* have done is unrealistic,
you have to consider what they *would* have done.
Anyone could have done that!
Could, and would.
Please state the actual *standard* you're using for that statement ?
Ahem. Ever heard of ANSI? On reading more, I find that MySQL has recently
made great strides towards ANSI SQL 92 compliance - laudable.
I've searched the MySql documentation, and can find no mention of any
support for rollback recovery. Is this supported? There are some laughable
statements, like "dump your tables... and usually most of the data is
intact and correct" (section 7.5.7.1), and mention of corrupt tables
even causing *roll-forward* recovery to crash - amazing! This class of
"DBMS" was common in the late 70s, early 80s, but should have vanished
by now. Everyone except MySQL uses the WAL protocol (or equivalent) to
avoid it. But I don't expect you know what WAL is, do you?
To Cyborg:
I'm not now, nor ever have been, a consultant, nor have I ever sold
MSSQL or any other MS product, or worked for a company that did. I
just happen to be working on a product mostly for MS hardware, and
MSSQL is the DBMS of choice for 90% of our customers.
I think...
If you want me to believe that, show evidence that you've visited the
TPC site for yourself. Otherwise, I stand by my description of you.
your friends were paid out to report
I don't know anyone at the TPC, or anyone who's ever built or tested
a system for the TPC. Go on, read the site, implement the benchmark
for yourself, and while running it on your chosen hardware, pull the
power cord and reboot a hundred times (database must be available
within a minute after the OS finished booting) and tell me you didn't
lose a committed transaction or need to reload from backups. This is
a minimum requirement of any commercial DBMS... for an organization
who values their data.
The site is really very readable, there are nice tables that you can
sort, slice and dice, containing data from hundreds of systems. If
you've ever actually studied DBMS, you'll know of TPA and TPB, the
earlier benchmarks - TPC is just the latest. It's entirely open, and
any vendor may challenge any other vendor's results, as enough detail
must be disclosed to allow anyone to rebuild the tested configuration
and reproduce the results. Not that I suppose science is likely to
enlighten a person who'd rather shoot back an ignorant response than
actually read the info for themselves.
Clifford Heath
That's all besides the point, we were discussing Mysql and MSDE.One last response, and I'll leave this off-topic thread alone.
I dislike MS intensely, and feel ashamed to work in an industry which
has foisted such atrocious wastage on the world. However, I am pragmatic
about trying to make my little corner of this industry less incompetent,
and I'm also willing to use *both* my eyes and offer congratulations
where it's due.
I can tell quite a bit about you by your posts and while it's true IAs opposed to a closed source white goods software groupie ?
I have created several open source projects myself, contributed to
others, and gratefully use many others, so it's clear you don't have
a clue what you're talking about, regarding either me or MSSQL.
You certainly seemed to think it was very important?I'm sure we all have a need for such big numbers.
No-one said we do,
Lack of evidence, is not evidence of lack, or can't you tell thebut it's quite clear that Cyborg's statements were
flat wrong. MSSQL isn't "always crashing" - in fact I've never seen or
heard of a crash attributed to MSSQL,
Of course, however they're about 60,000 times more likely to affect aand haven't experienced data
corruption either. There were the worms, but they're possible in any
software (more below).
I guess you haven't read your EULA lately ?The commercial DBMS vendors whose products could
negligently lose data were sued out of existence in the 1980's.
I think that you need as much laughter as you can get, so feel free.I'd like to see you be realistic.
Hah! that's a laugh, coming from you.
You referred to the fastest and biggest, try and stay on track.Such a system would require astronomical amounts of money,
Read the TPC website. The benchmark includes and requires full system
details, enough for anyone to reproduce the reported results, and requires
complete pricing, including maintenance costs over 5 years. Some quite small
systems are benchmarked, not just the behemoth clusters,
Choice has *nothing* to do with it. We are stuck with Microsoft as theyand the $/TPC are
represented for them all. See if you can suggest any way the benchmark
could be made more realistic, Mr. Realistic...
Sure it is, shame about the OS hosting it however.
I can't disagree with that - I much prefer to avoid it and stay on Linux
when I can (which is nearly all the time, even when developing for MS).
You talk about being realistic - now *you* try: Convince me that, in the
absence of MS, the world *wouldn't* have chosen a different player to
form a monopoly, and that the monopoly they chose would have done a
significantly better job of avoiding the problems we have with MS.
We have only one to consider, stick to the facts.Dreaming about what such a monopolist *could* have done is unrealistic,
you have to consider what they *would* have done.
*If they could*.Anyone could have done that!
Could, and would.
Uhuh.Please state the actual *standard* you're using for that statement ?
Ahem. Ever heard of ANSI?
I don't think so, but then I don't use Mysql.On reading more, I find that MySQL has recently
made great strides towards ANSI SQL 92 compliance - laudable.
I've searched the MySql documentation, and can find no mention of any
support for rollback recovery. Is this supported?
You think that because they mention problems and your beloved MICROS~1There are some laughable
statements, like "dump your tables... and usually most of the data is
intact and correct" (section 7.5.7.1), and mention of corrupt tables
even causing *roll-forward* recovery to crash - amazing!
Of course it is, they probably don't know they have a choice.This class of
"DBMS" was common in the late 70s, early 80s, but should have vanished
by now. Everyone except MySQL uses the WAL protocol (or equivalent) to
avoid it. But I don't expect you know what WAL is, do you?
To Cyborg:
I'm not now, nor ever have been, a consultant, nor have I ever sold
MSSQL or any other MS product, or worked for a company that did. I
just happen to be working on a product mostly for MS hardware, and
MSSQL is the DBMS of choice for 90% of our customers.
It's interesting that embedded GNU/Linux is so widely used then isn't itsnip
Hey CyBorg, I am really happy with MS since XP, and I investigated MSSQL
because of the licence conditions. I have heard of MySQL but not being a
huge DB programmer I have never looked into it. At this stage, i have all
the GUI tools for MSSQL2k so I am going to stick with. Plus like you said,
it's fully documented which suits me cause I am not the brightest, as you
also said.
PS, tried linux for an embedded app once, it was crap.
Hahah, the US army is dumping XP for embedded use and looking atIf I had to do it all
over again I would use XPe.
Then you're mistaken, GNU/Linux on the desktop is far more reliableMy personall feeling is that linux is really
well suited to net applications and the like, more so than desktop work.
Well for embedded use it all depends what your client wants.The real Andy threw some tea leaves on the floor
and this is what they wrote:
snip
Hey CyBorg, I am really happy with MS since XP, and I investigated MSSQL
because of the licence conditions. I have heard of MySQL but not being a
huge DB programmer I have never looked into it. At this stage, i have all
the GUI tools for MSSQL2k so I am going to stick with. Plus like you said,
it's fully documented which suits me cause I am not the brightest, as you
also said.
PS, tried linux for an embedded app once, it was crap.
It's interesting that embedded GNU/Linux is so widely used then isn't it
?
If I had to do it all
over again I would use XPe.
Hahah, the US army is dumping XP for embedded use and looking at
GNU/Linux right now.
US Army 'going to Linux' after OS switch for GI PDA
My personall feeling is that linux is really
well suited to net applications and the like, more so than desktop work.
Then you're mistaken, GNU/Linux on the desktop is far more reliable
with uptimes of several months not uncommon. No viruses or worms to
worry about, and well designed and stable software.
No restrictive licences either.
Bull.I don't do public pissing contests.