Databases Expensive? Oracle offers route from SQL Server to MySQL

“The latest version of MySQL Workbench has a new migration wizard designed to provide an easy way to migrate databases from third party products to MySQL.

This first version of the wizard lets you migrate from Microsoft SQL Server and from databases supporting ODBC such as PostgreSQL.”

see Oracle offers route from SQL Server to MySQL.

The new migration feature is available in MySQL Workbench 5.2:
“The MySQL Workbench Migration Wizard is designed to save DBA and developer time by providing visual, point and click ease of use around all phases of configuring and managing a complex migration process:

  • Migration project management – allows migrations to be configured, copied, edited, executed and scheduled.
    Source and Target selection – allows users to define specific data sources and to analyze source data in advance of the migration.
  • Object migration – allows users to select objects to migrate, assign source to target mappings where needed, edit migration scripts and create the target schema.
  • Data migration – allows users to map source and target data and data types, set up data transfer and assign post data transfer events where needed.

It’s already part of Debian GNU/Linux, Wheezy version.

“dpkg -s mysql-workbench
Package: mysql-workbench
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: database
Installed-Size: 43021
Maintainer: Dmitry Smirnov
Architecture: amd64
Source: mysql-workbench (5.2.40+dfsg-1)
Version: 5.2.40+dfsg-1+b1…”

One more bit of lock-in bites the dust. I like it…

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Databases Expensive? Oracle offers route from SQL Server to MySQL

  1. oiaohm says:

    https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Converting_from_other_Databases_to_PostgreSQL

    >>Does not convert views, stored procedures and triggers
    With Walter Ford this limitation I have to ask why not use one of the other free ones fully developed like .

    http://pgloader.io/
    Ok more command line like allows doing data transformations to convert mysql types to postgresql types in more controlled ways. If speed was a issue pgloader is one of the fastest out there by quite a margin these days. pgloader one of the fastest methods to get data into postgresql in fact faster method than Walter Ford convert-in tool that you pay $59 for. So its not speed or transformation ability.

    Only thing I can think of it that Walter Ford convert-in tool windows and has a kind of GUI.

    HeidiSQL
    https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/heidisql/
    Just happened back in 2012 that it was shipping with the windows development version of heidisql and even back then it support importing in and out of SQL Server. Personally I hate the pascal written thing with. Saying I had picked some odd tool it was not really it was what the Oracle one was kind in competition with.

  2. Wlater Ford wrote, “There is another tool to migrate from MySQL to PostgreSQL”.

    Hmmm… Non-Free software. Also non-$Free. $49 for single-instance licence. Can’t convert views… So, what’s the advantage over dumping to SQL or CSV and importing into PostgreSQL? Speed? I’d rather use tools already available that give total control of the whole process. Even in PASCAL, it would take ~15 minutes to write a programme to query one database in MySQL and insert records into another in PostgreSQL. Then, I would have some speed if that mattered. I can try that later today when I build Beast’s new RAID array. Rather than just backing up the present array, I could do conversion of databases too. I have several databases I could convert along with applications. That might take a few days longer than moving the data.

  3. Walter Ford says:

    hello…

    There is another tool to migrate from MySQL to PostgreSQL .

  4. DrLoser says:

    HeidiSQL vs SQL Server Management Studio?

    One thing that makes SQL Server Management Studio better, Mr O, is that it is a management studio for SQL Server.

    HeidiSQL is a graphical front-end for managing a C-ISAM FOSS system which happens to use SQL as (one of at least two, in fact, since it has a native C API which I would recommend as an alternative) the front-end.

    I’m interested to hear your matey, dingo-inspired tales of how you have used HeidiSQL as a management tool for SQL Server. I am convinced that your insights will be unique.

    Incidentally, I recommend TOAD for SQL and MySQL and Linux.

    I’ve never quite understood why Linux advocates insist on picking the most obscure and unpopular version of anything that they can think of, rather than the recognised best of breed.

    TOAD is actually very good indeed.

  5. oldman says:

    “There is a pascal written bit of crap out there that does better syntax checking on SQL Server than SQL Server Management Studio and its open source”

    Name it…

  6. oiaohm says:

    Phenom no I class MySQL default tools are only barely passable.

    All right smart ass Phenom exactly why are the SQL Server provided items worth a cracker. There is a pascal written bit of crap out there that does better syntax checking on SQL Server than SQL Server Management Studio and its open source.

    The reality is the SQL Server tools are nothing to write home about.

    Phenom put HeidiSQL and SQL Server Management Studio. Side by side. Both only run on Windows. HeidiSQL has full syntax checking for SQL Server. HeidiSQL has migration assistant tools between SQL Servers missing from Server Management Studio.

    Basically ever feature of SQL Server Management Studio is in HeidiSQL. Problem is the thing has all the other Useful features that HeidiSQL has.

    Mysql default tools make a decent feature set showing against HeidiSQL.

    HeidiSQL is not even the best third party Phenom.

    The reality here Phenom name something that makes SQL Server Management Studio better than HeidiSQL. Have fun.

    Now there commercial paid for tools that make the default mysql ones look complete trash.

    The reality here Phenom anyone who has used databases mean more than 1 make of database would have become aware that the default tools with sql server are lacking features. Features you get in the other default tools for other databases.

    Phenom by the way Microsoft does not advertise those tools are super tools to get the job done either because they know they are not.

  7. Phenom says:

    Pogson, if you call a wall of text that boils down to a link to Wikipedia “informative”, then your demands for informative texts are not really high.

    I expected Ohio to do a search on Google and come with some esoteric and almost reasonably sounding arguments that MySQL has a tools worth a copper coin. He failed in his own field this time, relying on a feeble article.

  8. oiaohm says:

    Ted note my links they are lists on the wikipedia mostly because they are more tidy.

    Phenom the issue with database tools is each one has a specialist reason. One of my favourites for starting a project out on is http://www.squirrelsql.org

    To be truthful squirrel sql is pritty bad. It makes up for it by supporting almost every database in existence so making it simple to move data from one to the other . squirrel sql being pritty bad compared to the top end commercials. Yet looks prity brillent when compared to SQL Server management studio.

    SQL Server Management Studio is truly crap because it really only works with SQL Server. So if you workload does not like SQL Server you are shot and feature wise is fairly much squirrel sql other than lacking database support like squirrel has.

    Even some poor stuff like HeidiSQL some manages to beat SQL Server Management Studio. Mostly only reason to be using SQL Server Management Studio is you don’t know where the better tools are yet.

    Oracle SQL tools for mysql or orcale database also support other databases other than there own. So I don’t need to change GUI just because 1 database is not up to the job. Ok these tools are limiting but at least they some good points. Like proper checking and detecting of typed sql errors before you send it to the server and it don’t work. Yes MS one you can send what every you like no matter how badly incorrect.

    So simple SQL Server Management Studio is crap. Why would I want to learn and use a tool that can only operate 1 database and provide no effective migration of data in from other databases and lacks validation of SQL commands. Like 1 of those I might live with 3 got be kidding me.

    “SQL Server Reporting Service is not that brilliant either.”

    Not know me not that brilliant it is not crap but its not what you would call pack leading or high quality. You could make a case for using that. Same problem comes up again if you have a crm that is mysql and you have some internally developers database that is SQL Server. SQL Server reporting really don’t help you.

    If spending money Crystal Reports is a better choice since it will connect to many different databases from different makers without issues same with the rest of the commercial and open source reporting packages.

    Phenom think about you spend 4 hours design a report template will you not want to resue that as much as able. You do it in the SQL Server Reporting Service and it does not connect to anything else other than SQL Server stable.

    Don’t you have half a brain to see what the problem is. I don’t want to have to redo stuff. Not when you have crystal reports, JasperReports and pentaho that support many databases.

    Most of the report software does not care that much about what database you are using it with because it makes absolute no scene to make the reporting software database dependant.

    Phenom it does not take long looking at the competition to work out that MS tools they are shipping with there database are second rate. I really should not have to point this out.

    If you want people to spend money provide quality and don’t be a stuck up prick supporting only your own products unless you do that really really well.

    I do mean full auto complete, full code checking for bugs, simple backup, simple start new instance from templates and replication support. Then you can get away with supporting just 1 database with your management tool. Reality is SQL Server Studio is only as good as what you would expect out a generic tool. Not only a specialist tool just for that database. To get what it should be providing you have to pay money. Mysql workshop is more feature rich.

    Reporting tool if you only support 1 database make you are junk particularly when the open source ones support multi and do it better.

  9. Ted says:

    “I use Wikipedia regularly even though I am appalled by the current trend that Wikipedia requires a link for every sentence or have stuff deleted/challenged on the basis of sources. Britannica didn’t require Einstein etc. to do that. They accepted that some sources/writers were authorities and let them be.

    Not to start a fight, but just to point out that you answer yourself. Britannica has/had acknowledged experts writing it. Articles on Wikipedia can be written or edited by any muppet who can make stuff up as they go until a real expert shows up and corrects it all, or just deletes it and starts again. Articles can be vandalised beyond recognition, or just subtly distorted. Hence Wikipedia’s policies of [Citation needed], editor logins, and locking contentious articles.

  10. Phenom wrote, “Even Pogsons senses you’re nothing.”

    Don’t write for me. I can think for myself. I think oiaohm’s posts are often quite informative if longer than necessary…

    A Wiki, by the way is some measure of the sum total of mankind’s knowledge and should not be discarded lightly. I use Wikipedia regularly even though I am appalled by the current trend that Wikipedia requires a link for every sentence or have stuff deleted/challenged on the basis of sources. Britannica didn’t require Einstein etc. to do that. They accepted that some sources/writers were authorities and let them be. So, I have quit contributing to Wikipedia because it’s unnatural for me to produce a link per sentence. However, others do endure the pain and produce a useful result. I find few errors in it. What Wikipedia lacks in quality it more than makes up in coverage and volume.

    Further, don’t write for oiaohm. He did not use Wikipedia to prove his expertise in databasery but to provide evidence of M$’s expertise. We know a company run by salesmen pour resources in random directions to try to be everything for everyone who might be a customer. That’s not the best way to produce software.

  11. Phenom says:

    Ohio, you bring Wiki as a proof to your expertise in databases? Go back to your toys, little one. Try some other forum, here you can impress only Mr. McRae. Even Pogsons senses you’re nothing.

  12. oiaohm says:

    ze_jerkface Yawn. I am meant to be impressed.

    SQL Server Management Studio is truly crap.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_database_tools Spend some time going through the competition feature wise is weaker than lots of the Open source ones. Also SQL Server Management Studio does not contain assistance with migrations between cloud and local or anything else really useful.

    SQL Server Reporting Service is not that brilliant either.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reporting_software

    http://www.pentaho.com/ for your cheap entry level stuff support more data sources without issues.

    ze_jerkface this is the reality you don’t want to be laughed at quote something decent like Oracle DB. MS SQL is not by any shape a decent database.

    ze_jerkface or were you attempted to quote why SQL Server is complete crap. The tools with it a completely second rate to what I can get for free else where.

  13. ze_jerkface says:

    SQL Server Management Studio.

    SQL Server Reporting Services.

    Nothing more needs to be said.

  14. Chris Weig says:

    Smirnov is a very appropriate name for a maintainer who has to maintain some sort of joke software. No wonder Vodka became his last refuge.

  15. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon its a feature of SQL Server that you can write stored procedures to be processed in the SQL Server itself in .Net.

    Its quite a old feature. http://www.sqldbatips.com/showarticle.asp?ID=22 2005 you should know it if you are a serous developer using SQL Server yet you don’t know it.

    Other name is a CLR stored procedure.

    Clarence Moon by the sounds of it I know how to optimise a MS SQL Server better than you do.

    System.Data.SqlServer LOL you need to read System.Data.MySql compare features find out that pooling and all the other bits SqlServer has .net side so does MySql. From interface face from .net point of view there is no different other than MySQL is faster cheaper particularly when using MariaDB relation that vertically scales.

    Yes Linq applies to using MySql from .Net as well if you know what to add.
    http://www.devart.com/dotconnect/mysql/articles/tutorial_linq.html
    Of course LinqConnect for using non Microsoft that the express edition is free shows how far in the dark you are Clarence Moon. In fact LinqConnect addes some nice features when you are just using SQL Server.

    Your ignorance is a complete joke. You don’t even know what SQL Server really can do Clarence Moon and you really must not be using .net that much. You would have had to of done a database migration at some point so should have found LinqConnect.

    I think you attentted one to many MS conferences and its rotted your brain Clarence Moon into a walking Zombie saying Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft. So no longer know how to Mix Microsoft products with Third party products.

    Perl and Java Stored Procedures start in MariaDB 5.1. Mysql default core has these as well. http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/2/A%20Tour%20of%20External%20Language%20Stored%20Procedures%20for%20MySQL%20Presentation.pdf
    Old features.

    Even so there is also C++ and C stored procedures allowed to be used with Mysql and MariaDB if you need the speed and are willing to give up the portability.

    Common sign of a database noobie is a person who thinks all stored procedures have to be done in SQL syntax and does not know the other syntax the database server they are using accepts. Of course you normally still do the stored procedure in SQL syntax for future portability requirements. Speed using SQL statements is slow on almost all databases.

    At least Phenom is getting the basics right. All the things Clarence Moon is referring is basic .net features.

    What think I don’t know how to code with .net???? LOL I repair solutions other people have stuffed up. I might not code in .net because it not cross platform enough but I do know how the stuff in it works and can code enough to convert from a .net solution to something else piece by piece.

  16. Clarence Moon says:

    Ok I guess you like .Net stored procedures. Nothing else about SQL Server on the .Net side is faster than MySQL.

    Who said anything at all about “speed”, Mr. O? Your ignorance is showing once more. Better get back to Google! Hint: Try “Linq” or at least “System.Data.SqlServer”.

    And what is a “.NET stored procedure”? You seem confused.

  17. oiaohm says:

    Phenom
    “MySQL does rather poor job scaling vertically compared to the big guys.”

    SQL Server Express (or Oracle Express) both don’t vertically scale at all.

    Even full SQL Server poorly vertically scales compared to MySQL related solutions. Yes full blow Oracle kicks MySQL related in some cases loses completely in others.

    Yes MySQL when you need vertically scaled may be a mistake yes talking to Sun would have been a mistake they don’t mention the forks of Mysql that can Vertically scale.

    Percona http://www.percona.com/ Percona Server with XtraDB Is from the blood line of Mysql but its truly altered to go vertically.

    “3) Improved energy consumption – one server consumes much less than a bunch of servers. Weren’t you the one who preaches energy efficiency of ARM’s and stuff?”

    Not exactly. Arm server boxs where you can power down what is not need power usage is not the problem. More cores can provide means to respond to more requests quickly then return to low power running. Cluster the way mysql does can be really good since it can nosql cluster from the storage.

    Arm hardware with 4 core units that are basically 4 core blade servers horizontal scalability is a better fit. Yes 1 2U box insane number of servers is basically an arm box.

    Mysql main is great horizontal scalability and takes some price for a backend design todo that.

    Percona Server with XtraDB. XtraDB is a different backend design to do Vertical Scalability.

    MariaDB also can go XtraDB. So also can Vertical Scale massively as well as Scale massively horizontally. Even more interesting is the fact you can mix and match how tables are stores to take advantage of both.

    Main Mysql suffers from not invented here and if you don’t sign our copyright assignment you cannot submit code. Percona Server has been open source since is first release with the really good Vertical Scale backend.

    Then depending on your workload Drizzle another mysql releation. Drizzle is mostly for that big scary hardware.

    “drizzled defaults to the port 3306 (the official MySQL port) and speaks the MySQL protocol.”

    This is true for all the ones I have mentioned they all tall MySQL your application code does not need to be changed. I am not kidding Drizzle is for big iron. When it comes into its own is 1024+ core systems NUMA systems that big that Windows refuses to install.

    “Drizzle is optimized for massive concurrency.”

    Yes if you are not needing massive concurrency in a vertical scale setup go XtraDB based something in Mysql releations that will get you to 1024 core NUMA.

    Phenom the reality here is something designed around mysql official you look at the Orcale provided Mysql as your Express and Basic additions of SQL Server.

    XtraDB based Mysql’s are your full blown SQL Server then some not quite Oracle DB.

    Drizzle O my god Oracle DB cannot scale far enough need something that will truly use this 4096 core server vertical.

    Phenom basically the stuff you mentioned the express editions is what I look as default Mysql as. Compared to the express edition Mysql scales better than all the other express editions. To complete with the full its the clones of Mysql that do that. Drizzle is so focused on concurrency its not that great with light requests.

    Yes its important to have the right consultants with Mysql. That does mean stay well clear of Oracle or what was Sun prior. Since they keep you on the Mysql core solution instead of using the forks that are the solution. You have directly stated you did not have the right consultants.

    Phenom of course it did not cross your mind that mysql is just express edition to a person like me. With bigger brothers for serous deployments. Since I see Mysql as express edition this is why I class the sql server express edition limitations as insulting.

  18. Phenom says:

    Pogson wrote: Lots of businesses are moving from thick client to web applications.

    So what? A competent developer can develop a web application based on any acient version of Oracle (or Interbase, or Sybase, or DB/2) and the only thing to consider is proper connection pooling (a few pages of code in case the JDBC / OleDB / NET provider by chance does not already has it). There is absolutely no reason to migrate a DB when transitioning to a web application.

    Phenom wrote, “MySQL sucks”, several times.
    Well, it does. Am I to take the blame for stating mere facts?

    Pogson then wrote: It may lack a few features that big businesses like but not reliability and performance.
    You speak of horizontal scalability here. What big-end databases do better is vertical scalability. The latter has several quite important benefits (list is not exhausting):
    1) Improved performance.
    2) Easier administration – you administer one DB instead of many. You can scale up with minimal administration efforts, as you simply plug in new resources. We do have a customer who tried MySQL cluster with the help of an consultant from Sun and finally gave up, and went to a commercial solution (Vertica), which they chose before Oracle due to the specifics of their data and processes.
    3) Improved energy consumption – one server consumes much less than a bunch of servers. Weren’t you the one who preaches energy efficiency of ARM’s and stuff?

    MySQL does rather poor job scaling vertically compared to the big guys.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Chris Weig MariaDB is operationally compatible with that tool.

    Phenom cost and hosting locations. Lot of Migrations to mysql is that hosts have it. Phenom its not just cost of license its cost of hosting.

    Express edition editions don’t scale well. Clarence Moon. Scale worse than mysql in fact.

    For me it is normally postgresql mostly because I run connection based selinux. So from the point a packet hit something on the server its being tracked by OS security. This is something windows does not have.

    Clarence Moon
    “MySQL requires a pay-for license for any commercial use of MySql whereas you can use SQL Express for databases up to 2GB commercially for free and it runs just fine on Windows 7 Home as well.”

    Really what are you smoking. MariaDB and MySQL community edition both legally can be used commercial with the same support level as SQL Express. Catch is there is no 2GB database limit on either.

    This is the problem with SQL Express its bate and switch. When your database hits 2GB then you find out you have to migrate or pay.

    Also “NDB (MySQL Cluster)” is included in the community edition of MySQL and MariaDB so you can cluster.

    Express edition of SQL server is really crap. The free versions of MySQL beat it into the ground.

    If a developer came to me and suggest we use SQL Express. Since it don’t scale it don’t support largish databases he would be have request place to have him fired to get someone competent.

    Now if he came to me with the plan of using SQL Express in development with MS SQL Server in deployment he may still have a job. He is not designing a system that one day due to data going in that going to magically stop.

    Phenom you should be up here kicked Clarence Moon because express edition of SQL Server is not dependable in any way shape or form.

    After a few SQL Server express ouches a lot of companies have the formal policy no SQL Server Express in final deployments. Mysql Community(of course relegations) and Postgresql are both free and don’t want to explode in your face because your program has entered too much data in a short time frame. Yes they do run on Windows.

    Chris Weig really people like Clarence Moon are worse. At least Robert Pogson is talking about something valid to use in production. What Clarence Moon is talking about is how to land mine a system. somethings you simple don’t do. Using Databases with small max sizes is one of those things you should never do in a deployment.

    Clarence Moon
    “optimized API in the .NET world”
    Ok I guess you like .Net stored procedures. Nothing else about SQL Server on the .Net side is faster than MySQL.

    Phenom
    “Trasition to a new data model – document-based DB, for instance, usually related to 1 (no points for MySQL).”

    MongoDB, CouchDB, Terrastore, OrientDB and Redis can be linked to Postgresql or mysql. These document-based DB can be linked a SQL Based in the open source world. Thing is each of those has different optimisations.

    So there is really no reason for MySQL to reinvent the wheel.

    Phenom and if you for one min that you can take a SQL database and transform to a document based and have it work well the reality it don’t. SQL Server is not brilliant it takes a best guess conversion.

    Many commercial tools exist to take from mysql and convert to document based databases and others. So once on mysql converting to other document based databases is not hard.

    The difference here in FOSS world each database tried to be good at the type they are. Conversion tools exist. SQL Server is trying to be a bit of everything and successfully not being brilliant at anything.

    The NoSQL backend of Mysql is not a documented based but is still highly impressive. NoSQL backend of Mysql is very cluster aware.

    Trasition to a new data model ok how about a new database using a new engines optimised to your workload. Phenom At this point you start swearing at SQL Server. This is why it was kinda big news that information could be got out of it by the default tool. Yes the default mysql tools already allow you to migrate to many other databases in the process changing the data model.

  20. Chris Weig says:

    I have been involved in managing a database.

    That’s the problem with the FLOSS crowd. Everyone of them is an ‘expert’, just because he’s able to:

    apt-get install mysql-server

    Chuckle.

    Running the install script for WordPress probably also makes one a database ‘expert’.

    And I’m wondering… isn’t MariaDB the ethical choice these days? With Oracle being evil and all.

  21. kozmcrae says:

    Suddenly everyone’s a database expert. I see the Cult of Microsoft is ever eager to spend someone else’s money.

  22. Clarence Moon says:

    Shouldn’t IT be about what the users of the software and hardware want…

    Actually not, Mr. Pogson. Software isn’t any different from any other item for sale as a product in the commercial world. Commercial software provides a set of features and functions that benefit the customer in some way. To the degree that the software benefits a class of users and fits their needs, the software defines a market area wherein that software might dominate other product offerings of lesser suitability.

    SQL Server and its free Express edition benefit from an optimized API in the .NET world, which is likely to thrill developers and result in far better products for business applications. Many of these applications are done in-house by large companies

  23. Phenom wrote, “writing a new web app is the stupidest possible reason to migrate a database.”

    Lots of businesses are moving from thick client to web applications.

    Phenom wrote, “MySQL sucks”, several times.

    It may lack a few features that big businesses like but not reliability and performance.

    “New benchmarks demonstrate MySQL Cluster’s ability to support the most demanding web and telecoms workloads, while maintaining 99.999% availability. MySQL Cluster delivered 1 billion queries per minute (17.6 million queries per second), scaled-out across 8 x commodity Intel x86 server nodes, accessed by the NoSQL C++ NDB API.”

  24. oldman says:

    “Folks wanting to spend less on installing the database than the effort required to choose a licensing model from M$ will love migrating to MySQL.”

    Only if they are as cheap as you are Pog. Most of the time they have in mind the features as discussed in

    http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/editions.aspx

  25. Phenom says:

    Pogson, writing a new web app is the stupidest possible reason to migrate a database.

    Saving costs on a database means effectively one thing – your company is going down. Company data, Pogson, only grows, it never becomes less. More data translates to a need of more efficient means to store and process it.

    Therefore, successful companies migrate databases for:
    1) Improved performance (MySQL sucks)
    2) Improved reliability (MySQL sucks even more)
    3) Trasition to a new data model – document-based DB, for instance, usually related to 1 (no points for MySQL).

  26. Phenom wrote, “Pogson, you absolutely never, ever, have been involved into managing a database.

    You do not migrate a database except for a reason. A very serious reason. Costs being the least one.”

    I have been involved in managing a database. Costs are just one reason amongst many to migrate. One may well want to migrate a database in the process of writing a new web application or switching web applications. My son worked for a company that made a living helping to manage and to migrate databases.

    Counter example: Suppose a company had set up a database on Big Iron with UNIX or M$ with NT4 on x86. There are lots of reasons to migrate those databases to something less costly especially if a new web application will be involved. Folks getting away from IE6 surely have that motivation. Folks wanting to spend less on installing the database than the effort required to choose a licensing model from M$ will love migrating to MySQL.

  27. Phenom and Clarence Moon endorsed M$’s stuff, with “no developer who once used SQL Server Express (or Oracle Express) would ever want to look at MySQL.”

    Shouldn’t IT be about what the users of the software and hardware want, lowest cost/highest performance or best price/performance? That’s not about making things easy for developers, M$’s slaves.
    “We’re Just Here to
    Help Developers”

    3

    “We’re NOT Just Here to
    Help Developers”

    4

    “We’re Here to Help
    MICROSOFT”

  28. Clarence Moon says:

    no developer who once used SQL Server Express (or Oracle Express) would ever want to look at MySQL.

    Amen, brother Phenom!

    For that matter, do the FLOSSers even know about SQL Server Express? MySQL requires a pay-for license for any commercial use of MySql whereas you can use SQL Express for databases up to 2GB commercially for free and it runs just fine on Windows 7 Home as well. MySql is a clumsy thing with primitive tools and Express has all the modern stuff.

  29. Phenom says:

    Pogson, you absolutely never, ever, have been involved into managing a database.

    You do not migrate a database except for a reason. A very serious reason. Costs being the least one.

    This article might be interesting to those who use the Express edition. However, no developer who once used SQL Server Express (or Oracle Express) would ever want to look at MySQL.

  30. oiaohm says:

    Of course once the data is in mysql the database exports to many clones.

    Clarence Moon there are about 4 compatible clones of mysql. Made and maintained by some very major companies who don’t trust Oracle.

    Also mysql to postgresql is not that hard.

  31. Clarence Moon wrote, “Putting your future in the good hands of Ellison is risky business.”

    Being locked into MySQL is less a hardship than being locked into that other OS, CALs, restrictions and M$’s server software.

    MySQL from Oracle is still cheaper than Oracle from Oracle.

    There are similar tools to migrate from SQL to PostgreSQL as well.

  32. Clarence Moon says:

    It strikes me that a manually constructed ODBC connection tool to copy contents and schema from one database product to another is a rather ineffective way to execute such a migration, Mr. Pogson. In any case, such “lockin” is a very minor part of a database environment selection decision. But take solace where you may.

    One might take some pause, though, from the article’s cautionary words:

    “However, most SQL Server users are wary of committing to MySQL because of the history of the Oracle takeover. Oracle acquired MySQL as part of the Sun takeover, and had to promise to continue development of MySQL in order to get the OK from the European Commission. That condition only lasts until 2015, which isn’t long in database terms.

    Given the profits Oracle makes from its own Oracle database management server, there is still a question mark over what will happen once the time limit for the condition is reached.”

    Putting your future in the good hands of Ellison is risky business.

Leave a Reply