MySQL, Access or Oracle?

Anon

What are the advantages/disadvantages of using a MySQL database over MS Access, Oracle or PostgreSQL?

[deleted]

Access: uses flatfiles and so is not an option.
mysql: is crap with no functionality
oracle: very good but very expensive
postgresql: free and full functionality.

this information is available in more flavours than you'd like it you just do a search.

Anon

I'd suggest you look at the project you're doing and consider your budget, the database you're most comfortable with, and the type of load you expect.

If you're really familiar with Access and the project is simple and the expected load is low then use it.

If you don't have a preference I'd suggest Postgres or (vincent's troll comments aside) mySQL). Either is robust, stable and have the features you'd need to deal with most projects. If you're considering this route I'd suggest you do some additional research to find out what both dbs have to offer and which would be the best fit for your experience and need.

If budget isn't an issue and you (or the powers that be) aren't comfortable with open source software go with Oracle.

I'd stack them up like this:
1. mySQL (#1 because I'm have experience with it)
2. Postgres
3. Oracle
10. Access :-)

Dave

Anon

Mysql can be the best option if you do not need to worry about 'acid' in you database or the 'r' in your rdbms. If your needs are simple (e.g. just text for a website) then go with mysql.

Only reason I would choose oracle is if I needed real production ready replication and i wasn't paying the bill...

gerardg

Well, mysql performs better than access. Access has more client-side stuff (forms, etc.) and probably more SQL support. Both are seriously limited though.

PostgreSQL has really come into it's own as a full-featured DB. It's even being offered as an alternative to MS-SQL and Oracle (such as by Lyris).

Oracle is all that and more, and you pay for it 😉.

Anon

I would more say:

MySQL: semi-SQL front end to a flat file database, with some known integrity issues, written by people who are more concerned with speed than anything else. Good as a text datastore, questionable as a long term data warehouse, unsuitable as a transactional database.

Postgresql: Solid and reliable, built by database gurus for database gurus. Performance never comes before correctness, and a VERY open design process. While performance is quite acceptable for medium loads (hundreds of users, accesses per second) it is not scalable to really large apps yet due to a lack of clustering support.

Access: Prototyping tool. Should not be used in production for any data you genuinely care about.

Oracle: One of the big heavy lifters of the database world. Scales to huge loads, but will cost you a pretty penny no matter what you are using it for.

If they were lifeguards think of them this way:

MySQL: Handsome, muscled, and tan, he runs quickly into the water to save you, drags you out, then can't remember how to perform CPR and you die anyway.

Oracle: A team using several dozen boats and jetskis, grab you in a net and fly you to the hospital under a helicopter. You find out you had a sprained ankle. Bill: $2M US

Access: You fall overboard, someone tosses you a life ring. Boat never slows down, no one is sure if you made it or not, but at least you have a nice ring to hand on to. Out in the mid atlantic.

Postgresql: Waits to make sure you really are drowning. Swims out to you, brings you ashore, performs CPR, and after you wake up, spends 2 hours lecturing you on water safety.

:-)