Re: [tlug] MySQL vs Oracle

[Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com>]

This seems to a be a common myth.  Oracle is more robust than alot of the 
free solutions. Especially in the area of replication/clustering, but there
is no evidence to support this. I know there are Postgres production servers
that are 10 million items plus, and I am sure that the same is true for
MySQL.  You are dealing with a consultant who bought into conventional
wisdom that is patently false.  Where do such rumors get started? I imagine
that the oracle marketing dept. has something to do with that.

--Matt
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 04:22:19PM +0900, Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote:
> Just had a heated argument with a japanese system consultant. He wouldn't 
> stop shouting about how Oracle could handle tables with large ammounts of 
> data (2 million items plus) whereas MySQL qould be slow and therefore we 
> shouldn't use MySQL on our web site and should instead "thin of the future" 
> and go with Oracle. I kept asking for "proof" but all I could get was 
> "everyone knows this, how come you don't?"
> 
> I'll be doing a quick search on the net to see if I can find any numbers to 
> shw that MySQL isn't *that* bad/slow.
> 
> I was just wondering if anyone had any quick links to any comparisons 
> between MySQL and Oracle??
> 
> Jc
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx