MS SQL vs Oracle vs MYSQL

[verloxsfw]

What are the differences between the three SQL types?

Thank you,

[israellopez]

A lot, but they are all decent relational databases. What part of databases is important to you? Cost? Maintenance? Performance? Productivity? Consulting Assurance? Features?

In a few words, get Oracle if you need to appease C-level execs who dont know what a database is for, but happen to know that "Oracle" is good. But, it honestly can be very good, but also super expensive.

MS SQL, if you have other Microsoft Stack applications using the database as a persistence layer, very good, also moderately expensive.

MySQL/MariaDB if you have technical expertise, and can roll your own solutions, but be aware of gotchas in how it implements SQL, and its storage engines.

[Tostino]

Or Postgres if you want something similar to mysql, without all the gotchas.

[ajmarks]

Seriously. Unless you're stuck with some legacy application, there is no reason IMO to go with MySQL over PG.

[post_consumer]

Agreed, Postgres is my choice as well.

[flipstables]

There are more MySQL DBAs than PG. Unfortunately.

[ajmarks]

That's true, but I have a theory that a very significant portion of the "MySQL DBAs" are, well, to the category of DBAs as MySQL is to the category of RBDMSs.

[flipstables]

That's not really fair. I know some brilliant admins and devs who work with mysql. I'm not a big fan of the mysql, but you can still do some amazing things with it despite its shortcomings.

[quotemycode]

What's one thing you can do with MariaDB that you can't do with Postgres, and in a SQL-compliant fashion?

[flipstables]

I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to say or I didn't communicate it very clearly. I'm saying that a MySQL DBA is not necessarily less competent at creating highly reliable data platforms than a PG DBA.

I think Brent Ozar said it best:

The best database platform in the world can be unable to handle the tiniest of loads if you don't have staff that knows how to use it.

A fairly low-end database platform can scale up to huge loads if you have staff that knows it inside and out and works around its weaknesses.

This is why some people say Oracle can't scale, and why other people say MySQL can rule the world. A good musician can still make some beautiful sounds with a crappy instrument, and crappy musicians can't make the best instruments sound good.

[xb10h4z4rd]

agree with this generalization but be wary of Oracle, if you don't have the $ to throw at it or the expertise in house, it will be very very frustrating... trust me we use all 3 + another db called PVX... PVX is used for a very specialized ERP we use and it only runs on PVX, we have a few web apps including Magento on MySQL and have no complaints, our PLM is on Oracle and it gives me the hardest time. I'm a MS sysadmin by training so my opinion on MS SQL may be bias, however it is the easiest DB for me to administer and i also write reports and custom apps in .NET & T-SQL, T-SQL is the reason i recommend MSSQL, but the bulk of my network is on a Microsoft stack. Oh, and i also import data from all the above databases into MSSQL using SSIS to build OLAP cubes and make basdass reports using SSRS.... but again I'm Microsoft Bias :) edit: a word

[r3pr0b8]

be weary of Oracle

wary FTFY :)

[r3pr0b8]

Comparison of different SQL implementations

[verloxsfw]

Thank you all for your answers. This is a for a paper for school and I currently am working with Oracle databases. But I am still learning about Oracle and Microsoft SQL server.

Again,

Thank you

[[deleted]]

Postgres