Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. "MySQL is faster than MS SQL Server", Should I believe it?

"MySQL is faster than MS SQL Server", Should I believe it?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
databasemysqlsql-serversysadminquestion
22 Posts 11 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • C Chris Maunder

    But SQLServer caches everything in RAM as well. Take a look at the CodeProject server one day - millions of queries a day and nary a flicker of hard drive activity to be seen. cheers, Chris Maunder

    N Offline
    N Offline
    NormDroid
    wrote on last edited by
    #12

    So if your server goes down without a UPS backup you're so shafted, so to speak :~ Developing with C++ is like programming by the seat of your pants

    C 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • N NormDroid

      So if your server goes down without a UPS backup you're so shafted, so to speak :~ Developing with C++ is like programming by the seat of your pants

      C Offline
      C Offline
      Chris Maunder
      wrote on last edited by
      #13

      Which is why we have a UPS backup :) cheers, Chris Maunder

      N 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • C Chris Maunder

        Which is why we have a UPS backup :) cheers, Chris Maunder

        N Offline
        N Offline
        NormDroid
        wrote on last edited by
        #14

        OK smart ass, which goes sooner your UPS dying or your MS SQL server purging its guts out to disk. ;) Developing with C++ is like programming by the seat of your pants

        C 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • C Chris Maunder

          But SQLServer caches everything in RAM as well. Take a look at the CodeProject server one day - millions of queries a day and nary a flicker of hard drive activity to be seen. cheers, Chris Maunder

          D Offline
          D Offline
          David Stone
          wrote on last edited by
          #15

          Yeah, but what I meant was that in MySQL you can shove stuff into RAM. It's optimized for that. SQLServer has to put the stuff into RAM. And even then, I think that it only puts part of it into ram...:~ Maybe you could ask someone on the SQL Server team about this very issue while you're there Chris...:-D Your bullshit is so effusive I can smell it across oceans... You impress no-one. You are a world-class sleazeball; an incomparable jerk. No-one is fooled by your idiotic attempts to slant votes. -A. N. Onymous on Bill SerGio

          M 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • N NormDroid

            OK smart ass, which goes sooner your UPS dying or your MS SQL server purging its guts out to disk. ;) Developing with C++ is like programming by the seat of your pants

            C Offline
            C Offline
            Chris Maunder
            wrote on last edited by
            #16

            LOL. cheers, Chris Maunder

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • D David Stone

              Yeah, but what I meant was that in MySQL you can shove stuff into RAM. It's optimized for that. SQLServer has to put the stuff into RAM. And even then, I think that it only puts part of it into ram...:~ Maybe you could ask someone on the SQL Server team about this very issue while you're there Chris...:-D Your bullshit is so effusive I can smell it across oceans... You impress no-one. You are a world-class sleazeball; an incomparable jerk. No-one is fooled by your idiotic attempts to slant votes. -A. N. Onymous on Bill SerGio

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Mark Conger
              wrote on last edited by
              #17

              I don't know what the Codeproject Db looks like (Is there a way to look at it??? ;P) but what you are talking about is a cacheing mechanism found in most RDBMS (Oracle has it, as does DB2. Basically run most any DML and depending on your buffer cache a certain number of blocks/pages are cached to RAM. You can get a really quick query on those till they are flushed/aged out. The buffer cache typically works on a least used, flush queue principle. You can also do what's called pinning/nailing to load tables into memory automatically upon server start... this is great for lookup and small tables with no updating cause they are locked in memory, but try nailing a couple 100 million row table sometime :) KA-BOOM! :omg: Mark

              D 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M Mark Conger

                I don't know what the Codeproject Db looks like (Is there a way to look at it??? ;P) but what you are talking about is a cacheing mechanism found in most RDBMS (Oracle has it, as does DB2. Basically run most any DML and depending on your buffer cache a certain number of blocks/pages are cached to RAM. You can get a really quick query on those till they are flushed/aged out. The buffer cache typically works on a least used, flush queue principle. You can also do what's called pinning/nailing to load tables into memory automatically upon server start... this is great for lookup and small tables with no updating cause they are locked in memory, but try nailing a couple 100 million row table sometime :) KA-BOOM! :omg: Mark

                D Offline
                D Offline
                David Stone
                wrote on last edited by
                #18

                Oh cool. I had no idea that's how it worked. I knew that you could load MySQL stuff into memory, but I didn't know that SQL Server cached stuff as well. Your bullshit is so effusive I can smell it across oceans... You impress no-one. You are a world-class sleazeball; an incomparable jerk. No-one is fooled by your idiotic attempts to slant votes. -A. N. Onymous on Bill SerGio

                M 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • D David Stone

                  Oh cool. I had no idea that's how it worked. I knew that you could load MySQL stuff into memory, but I didn't know that SQL Server cached stuff as well. Your bullshit is so effusive I can smell it across oceans... You impress no-one. You are a world-class sleazeball; an incomparable jerk. No-one is fooled by your idiotic attempts to slant votes. -A. N. Onymous on Bill SerGio

                  M Offline
                  M Offline
                  Mark Conger
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #19

                  I know squat about MySQL but a buffer cache is one of the primary elements in doing server tuning to accomodate load. Otherwise the darn thing goes to disk for evenything so query returns go up an order of magnitude in return time. SQL server I think is a bit weak on how they did this compared to say...Oracle, but it works. The command in SQL Server is to use DBCC PINTABLE. In SQLServer's case it doesn't load the table at server start but at first query. Pages hit by the query are flagged as pinned and then they never age out of the buffer cache and stay there forever. Lots of DBAs cheat and build a job that runs on server start up that does something like a select * or a row count to force all pages into memory. (Can you tell I do this for a living :P) Mark

                  D 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • M Mark Conger

                    I know squat about MySQL but a buffer cache is one of the primary elements in doing server tuning to accomodate load. Otherwise the darn thing goes to disk for evenything so query returns go up an order of magnitude in return time. SQL server I think is a bit weak on how they did this compared to say...Oracle, but it works. The command in SQL Server is to use DBCC PINTABLE. In SQLServer's case it doesn't load the table at server start but at first query. Pages hit by the query are flagged as pinned and then they never age out of the buffer cache and stay there forever. Lots of DBAs cheat and build a job that runs on server start up that does something like a select * or a row count to force all pages into memory. (Can you tell I do this for a living :P) Mark

                    D Offline
                    D Offline
                    David Stone
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #20

                    Mark Conger wrote: Can you tell I do this for a living :laugh: No. Not at all... ;-) Your bullshit is so effusive I can smell it across oceans... You impress no-one. You are a world-class sleazeball; an incomparable jerk. No-one is fooled by your idiotic attempts to slant votes. -A. N. Onymous on Bill SerGio

                    M 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • D David Stone

                      Mark Conger wrote: Can you tell I do this for a living :laugh: No. Not at all... ;-) Your bullshit is so effusive I can smell it across oceans... You impress no-one. You are a world-class sleazeball; an incomparable jerk. No-one is fooled by your idiotic attempts to slant votes. -A. N. Onymous on Bill SerGio

                      M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Mark Conger
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #21

                      hehe. Man I need to get a real job :) I've been doing this too long. Mark

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J Jon Hulatt

                        MySQL does now support transactions. http://www.mysql.com/products/mysql-4.0/index.html[^] Although i've never benchmarked them, i do personally have the touchy-feely feeling that it's quicker. Which kind of doesn't suprise me... mysql's primary goal has always been speed. and, the dev cycle is such that new code gets out to a product release far quicker than MS can. they are driven by commerical process, not technology. mysql still lacks a decent user interface, none of the ones available are anywhere near as useful as query analyser/enterprise manager combo. Signature space for rent. Apply by email to....

                        V Offline
                        V Offline
                        Vuemme
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #22

                        Jon Hulatt wrote: MySQL does now support transactions. I checked it some months ago and I didn't read the new release descriptions. I'm sorry for the wrong information I gave. I think that the problem with benchmarks and with database benchmarks in particular is that they are focused on a specific issue and sometime you will find yourself with the DB that is the fastest doing something you don't need :) I think that both oracle and ms have benchmarks showing that their DB is the fastest DB running on a x86 platform and IBM did the same with its DB2... -- Looking for a new screen-saver? Try FOYD: http://digilander.iol.it/FOYD

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups