Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- From: ogden <ogden@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:09:05 +0000
Kevin Stone wrote:
>
> ogden wrote:
>
> >> Also, can someone confirm that MySQL would be better than ODBC - in
> >> my local tests on multi-thousand data read/writes, ODBC was quicker,
> >> so I never bothered to change.
> >
> > Er. ODBC is a database connector. MySQL is a database platform. You
> > might as well ask "can someone confirm that RJ45 would be better than
> > Ethernet?".
>
> I realised this when I posted it. I meant to compare MySQL with Access97
> (through ODBC)
I've worked (do work, whatever) on a large web hosting platform which
uses Oracle 9 and MySQL 4.1 for its database back-end, and there aren't
currently any real performance problems that I know of.
MySQL is (jihads notwithstanding) in the same bracket as MS SQL, not Access
(which is bugger all use for anything really, unless you're going to make
use of the out-of-the-box GUI for small office purposes)
Are you running everything on the same box, or is the database platform
a little more flexible?
--
ogden, zx7r, parenthesis junkie
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- From: Rope
- Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- From: simonk
- Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- From: Kevin Stone
- Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- References:
- OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- From: Kevin Stone
- Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- From: ogden
- Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- From: Kevin Stone
- OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- Prev by Date: Re: I reckon this guy uploadd the wrong pic selling his bike
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Radar / Laser Detectors
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Alternative to IIS on Windows 2003
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|