fastest database server?

Spacedog

which database program of:

MS SQL Server,
Oracle,
MY SQL,
Other.

...is the fastest, best preforming DBMS? are there any sites showing tests/benchmarks being carried out and/or results.

scojones

AFAIR it's MySQL, if the number of db connections is going to be small (< 100 at any given time). I can't remember where i saw this though.

davej

Many of the benchmarks are done with highly customised hardware setups / stripped down versions so you aren't necessarily going to be able to apply the results for a user running a vanilla setup.

Other issues to consider are good database design, proper indexing etc... which is probably more important for speed.

davej

casper-

Originally posted by Spacedog
which database program of:

MS SQL Server,
Oracle,
MY SQL,
Other.

...is the fastest, best preforming DBMS? are there any sites showing tests/benchmarks being carried out and/or results.

That is one of the most impossible questions to answer. Ever.

sjones is talking about the benchmark that eWeek put out sometime last year where MySQL beat Oracle.

davej's response is more accurate; you cannot just compare x different databases given some criteria. Just for an example, look at the speeds of SQLite for example - it's an in-memory/process or embedded database that can be quite fast depending on circumstances.

Spacedog: if this is for school, give us more information on the assignment question. If it's for the real world, give us more information on the project in question

yop

That is one of the most impossible questions to answer. Ever.

Definatelty agree there. Had this "discussion" before with MYSQL v SQL Server.

If you look at it from googles point of view they use MYSQL as their main backend due to the great speed it has for text searches.

If you are running bigger queries then the likes of SQL Server or Oracles (does oracle has sp's!) have Stored procedure which are run on the DB server, MYSQL does not have stored procedures.

Give us more detail and we will try and help you

Merrion

Oracle does have stored procedures, yes.

Database servers respond to improved hardware setups more than pretty much any application so if you are having speed problems with a real life database then I would recommend a dual approach of increasing hardware power (memeory and processors available) and identifying and optimising data design bottlenecks.

Spacedog

lol, I'm not asking for college or anything like that, I'm just curious. where I'm working, there talking about upgrading SQL servers to dual processors, while phasing out MY SQL servers, me being an advocate of open source technology was hoping there'd be some proof out there that Sql server isn't the be all and end all. in college I was led to believe that Oracle kicks SQL servers ass, but wasn't sure how MY SQL fitted in.

In work, a lot of work involving ASP.net and stored procs, so I guess SQL server is the best for what were doing... for now

casper-

Ahh... a specific need

If you want to argue with your bosses, here's the link

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,293,00.asp

(looks like they've updated with tests that seem relevant to your situation)

pictures are here

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow/0,3018,sid=0&s=1590&a=23120,00.asp

Kernel32

Spacedog, there are native ways to talk to Sql Server and Oracle from .Net which is very fast. The built in sqlclient classes in .Net plus Microsoft and Oracle released data providers for Oracle which means you don't need to use OLEDB, plus Data Direct has all sorts of native data providers for .Net so don't let the fact that .net is microsoft stop you from using a non-microsoft database. I have used Sql Server and Oracle extensively, PL/SQL is more powerful than T-SQL in my opinion and the Oracle database is more advanced in some areas such as materialised views with query rewrites versus schema bound views in SQL Server. Oracle does not kick SQL Servers ass though, from my contracting work I have found that the database chosen was often due to a good Oracle salesperson versus a Microsoft one or vice versa. I have worked with small Oracle databases that are slow because they are poorly designed and very large SQL Server databases that are lightening fast because they are well designed. I would worry more about an efficient data model, using compiled SQL versus dynamic SQL, proper use of indexes and structure of datafiles rather than the actual RDBMS.

jmcc

Originally posted by yop
If you look at it from googles point of view they use MYSQL as their main backend due to the great speed it has for text searches.

Huh? Where did you get this idea from?

MYSQL does not have stored procedures.

MySQL doesn't have a lot of other things as well such as transactions, subselects etc. Though 4.xx versions do have them in some ways.

Different database programs require different hardware and trying to compare them in a purely theoretical way is a bad and misleading thing. Without ground rules, it is just an argument about the length of a piece of string.

Regards...jmcc

CH

The basis MS charge for MS SQL 2K is on your choice of the following:

1. per processor
2. per user basis
3. per client device

This is on top of the initial cost! It is'nt cheap.

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp

dmd

Hum.

Well, for sheer speed, mysql would *probably* win, mind you I'm sure any other database vendor could supply some benchmarks which say it doesn't.

However, for example, it doesn't have stored procedures. There will be a lot of trade offs on this. Or what if it does have procedures, say oracle 10g will try and make it more efficent by default.

Postgresql would probably be considered slightly more *serious* for some applications, but 99.9% of websites out there wouldn't need those features.

There is *NO* answer to that question, unless you have something in mind, in which case you should give it a try on a few databases. Also, the chances are , speed won't matter in any case, the difference between 0.1 and 0.2 seconds, which is a huge difference in database terms, probably won't matter, in the least, even with 100 updates/selects a second.

yop

In work, a lot of work involving ASP.net and stored procs, so I guess SQL server is the best for what were doing... for now

Ummm, sounds so familiar, have a search for a post I put up about 10 months ago as regards the same situation.
Unfortunately for the developers on my team, the company decided on using MYSQL on a pure cost basis, it took us a good while to get up to speed on MYSQL and it limitations BUT if your system is not overly reliant on DB performance with the use of SP's, triggers etc then MYSQL is top notch.

Huh? Where did you get this idea from?

From talking to the lads in Google

kayos

Oh god this old gem again....

Each RDBMS has its good points and an advocate of each RDBMS will be able to provide figures that will say their prefered system is best.

From my point of view not having stored procedures would put me off most RDBMS's just for the maintaince/preformance/security aspect of having to use dynamic SQL all the time. But thats my point of view.

There are so many factors involved in choosing a RDBMS even if you leave out the actual database design itself. Do you need tranactions, replication, clustering, load balancing etc? What are the cost restraints etc. I would put all of these factors above supporting Open Source systems when choosing...

Spacedog

gotta fight the power though!