comparing MS SQL to MySQL (size)

filtuh.com

Free Member
Feb 28, 2010
385
77
York, UK
anyone know what a 100Mb MS SQL db with transactional logging would be if transactional logging were turned off and also compared to MySQL?

does this proportion remain the same as size increases or decreases?

thanks!
 

essayer

Free Member
Dec 18, 2009
26
0
Surely there's too many variables to decide that. 100mb of what? For MySQL, if purely table data - it depends on the column types. Then indexes. Then whether you are binary logging, query logging, whether InnoDB is used / if you can reclaim disk space ..
 
Upvote 0
From what I can remember about MS SQLServer, it is a very different beast compared to MySQL.

SQLServer is based on the idea of creating data devices and log devices upfront which hold databases and multiple tables etc and are therefore created bigger than required anyway.

MySQL is based more on the underlying file system, with files per table which grow when required.

(SQLServer devices can autogrow too, but in certain sized chunks.)

Just because SQLServer might take up more room, this isn't always a bad thing, as there are reasons and advantages to its approach too, e.g. speed of table growth, performance, better data integrity resilience with its log etc

BTW, transaction logs are not like say web logs, just logging what happens. They are usually a necessary feature to ensure data integrity, resilience, rollbacks, smooth backups etc.

I find it strange that a strategic decision between MS SQLServer and MySQL would be purely based on how big the underlying file sizes are.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

filtuh.com

Free Member
Feb 28, 2010
385
77
York, UK
Thanks, I wasn't basing the entire decision on size. Size is one of the factors, and has an input into cost. I wasn't clear about size so I asked.

Why all the patronising and shooting down eaRlier in this thread - is this forum about point scoring or something?
 
Upvote 0

Latest Articles

Join UK Business Forums for free business advice