MySQL 5 vs MS SQL server 2005

[Spragleknas]

Could someone list what the difference between these two are when it comes to benefits and disadvantages?

In other words: Which would you recommend and why?

Did not find anything about this in Wiki1

[rtv]

If you like it open source -> use MySQL

If you like Microsoft -> use MS SQL

Both have easy to use GUI management tools and performance doesn't differ that much.

[Spragleknas]

Thanks for your answer, rtv.

Any difference in stability/bugs/support when used with MP?

[kolizz]

I use MySQL for a couple of reasons. Mostly because I generally don't like Microsoft, but after trying both ways out I also found MySQL to be easier to install and seems a bit faster to start up. It also doesn't install as much additional crap that at least I don't use as MS SQL.

[dmeglio]

I would recommend MSSQL. I was an avid MySQL user for many years, but I've been forced to use SQL Server at work and I love it! It seems faster, more stable, and just a better product. MySQL is good too, very nice program and all, but MS SQL (well at least the full version, I don't have too much experience with Express), I found to be much faster than MySQL, more feature rich, more stable, and more scalable.

That being said, I doubt you'll see any differences between the two in MP unless you intend to have 1 million+ recordings stored...

[Shivian]

Sorry to drag up the old thread but I thought it better to continue this discussion than start a new one.

SQL Server Express has a few limitations from what I see. Single seat, 4GB database limit, single CPU. Isn't that enough reason to use MySQL?

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...-features.mspx - 4GB limit for DB size, 1 CPU, 1GB ram limit for the server.
Compare Microsoft SQL Server to MySQL - just for reference... MS's take on the advantages of SQL Server over MySQL. For a TV server, I see no points that are relevant except perhaps for "Availability".

Anyway, I think those shortfalls are enough to consider the "less secure" MySQL!

I am writing this hoping someone to point out compelling reasons to consider the SQL Server Express...

[flokel]

Originally Posted by Shivian

SQL Server Express has a few limitations from what I see. Single seat, 4GB database limit, single CPU. Isn't that enough reason to use MySQL?

Does this mean that you can not use sql express in a multi seat configuration?

[Shivian]

It sounds that way... don't know how the TV Service handles it in practice.

[and-81]

No, MS SQL Express is fine for use with TV Server in Multi-Seat setup.

As for the 4GB database limit and single CPU only. Well, no, I don't see that as reason enough to use MySQL. No offence.

I don't think anyone using MediaPortal has a 4GB database and limiting the process to a single CPU will be of no consequence either... unless your PC is running at ~99% CPU utilisation, in which case you have bigger problems than deciding what DBMS to use.

I've never had any problems with SQL Express, I've found it stable and reliable. Admittedly I've never bothered trying MySQL, but why would I if what I'm using works?

I actually don't think there are any compelling reasons to choose either of them over the other. They both seem to work just fine. Take a look at the forum support threads and you rarely see anything relating to the database.

Cheers,

PS. Just to address the Anti-Microsoft theory for using MySQL... MediaPortal itself is built on Microsoft technologies! .net, C#, DirectX, MediaPlayer, Visual Studio, Windows! If you want to stay away from Microsoft products you've made a bad start

[Shivian]

I'm not saying to stay away from MS... I'm saying the Express edition has some limitations that are unnecessary and can limit performance when there is an alternative that doesn't not have such limits. If you are running dual or quad cores, why not let the database take advantage of that?

I develop in .NET day to day and I use SQL Server databases (and one MySQL database). I have nothing against MS software dev tools. I can't see using another IDE other than VS in the foreseeable future.