Question about using free/paid SQL servers.

[stoymigo]

Throughout my dev career I've seen these scenarios:

1.Corporates will not have a problem with buying SQL Server( like MSSQL Enterprise etc) since they're rich.
2.MySQL was the choice of db for a piece for a pharmacy-software solution since some pharmacies are not rich, this was using vb6.
3.And then currently, while at my company we prefer to use MS SQL 2008, old clients and even some new clients use a free version of MS SQL 2000, so the issue of paying for sql server pops up now and again - albeit rarely.

Now I know that MS SQL 2012 express comes with 10GB limit per db which is quite big and probably enough for many scenarios, but is it worth it to use free dbs like MySQL/PostgreSQL so one doesn't have to worry about the client having to purchase the db(and db size limitation in the case of ms sql express) - thus saving costs?
Thanks

 

[Skandalis]

Do development/training on the free versions.

Production warrants paying for your database engine. Irrespective of the vendor.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I think there is value in applications that are database agnostic for a lot of customers (certainly in the small-to-mid sized company space) as well as to you as a developer. Many frameworks like Rails and the PHP frameworks such as CakePHP and Yii incorporate database abstraction and/or an active record technology which make them database agnostic to a degree (I'm not going to go into the relative performance merits of frameworks here or how db agnostic the current ones actually are.)

Offering db agnostic applications gives your customer options - if they own licenses for SQL Server or Oracle or if they feel these are better suited for their requirements, then great, no problem, they can use this. Otherwise, being able to run your application on MySQL, PostgreSQL,Firebird or whatever may make it easier to make a buying decision in favour of your software as they don't incur costs in additional licensing. Also, in the case that the free DB proves insufficient, it adds weight to the argument that investment should be made in a proprietary technology.

I have no problem with the capabilities of SQL server but you do have to pay for that technology. Even relying solely on the free Express version is potentially locking your clients into one vendor which could be a expensive upgrade path for them at some point in the future.

By offering a solution that gives the customer options in which back end to use, you give your customer options and also open up your application to appeal to a wider customer base.

 

[DominionZA]

SQL 2008 Express also has a 10GB limit, along with single CPU limitation.
I have them dotted all over at various clients and zero issues to date. It can take a while to reach that 10GB limit.

At clients that have reached it, well the system is used heavily and they don't mind upgrading to a licensed version when the time arrives.

 

[InvisibleJim]

At clients that have reached it, well the system is used heavily and they don't mind upgrading to a licensed version when the time arrives.

In this situation, the client is already locked in to using the MS technology and have to upgrade whether they like it or not. Probably this happens some time down the road from when the original software was purchased and the software may have become critical or indispensible for the business. For many it will not so much be a case of "we don't mind" as "we accept that we have to."

SQL Server licenses can be a pretty hefty investment, depending on what you need. By building software based on using the free but limited SQL Server Express, developers may be burdening customers with additional costs down the line. This detracts from the value of the offering from the customers point of view.

 

[DominionZA]

In this situation, the client is already locked in to using the MS technology and have to upgrade whether they like it or not. Probably this happens some time down the road from when the original software was purchased and the software may have become critical or indispensible for the business. For many it will not so much be a case of "we don't mind" as "we accept that we have to."

SQL Server licenses can be a pretty hefty investment, depending on what you need. By building software based on using the free but limited SQL Server Express, developers may be burdening customers with additional costs down the line. This detracts from the value of the offering from the customers point of view.

Repository and Unit of work patterns remove the dependency on MS. It is their choice to stick to it.

 

[zippy]

In this situation, the client is already locked in to using the MS technology and have to upgrade whether they like it or not. Probably this happens some time down the road from when the original software was purchased and the software may have become critical or indispensible for the business. For many it will not so much be a case of "we don't mind" as "we accept that we have to."

SQL Server licenses can be a pretty hefty investment, depending on what you need. By building software based on using the free but limited SQL Server Express, developers may be burdening customers with additional costs down the line. This detracts from the value of the offering from the customers point of view.

Isn't the OP referring to free hosting, rather than free versions at yr own site?

Edit: never mind, he isn't

 

[guest2013-1]

While MySQL/Postgre is free, you get what you pay for. I think the time it will take in properly configuring/making sure the DB is optimized will outweigh the cost of a MSSQL at the end of the day since MS did (in my opinion) quite a nice job in n00bifying their software.

For example, I had a client who had 7 million products on his online store. The company who did it did it in a Classic ASP/MySQL mix (**** knows why, I'd have gone full LAMP). The database couldn't handle more than 100k products due to it's design/setup. It just didn't want to take full advantage of the RAM even after I spent weeks (even months) reading up on MySQL (which I never used before then) and implemented most of what I could. I got the "search" down from 20min+ to less than 2min, but it was still *minutes* (for 100k, not even 7mil)

In the end I decided to test MS SQL instead and see what I get. Loaded it up, loaded a copy of the database on, 30 seconds, no optimization, no faffing about, it just gave me an extremely fast response compared. Run it through optimization, and not only could they do a search in less than 2 seconds, they could do so on the entire product line they had

So buying > free unless you know what you're doing and you're some kind of db kung fu master

However I did learn a lot about MySQL and the options it provides and how indexes work and the internal workings of a db though

 

[semaphore]

While MySQL/Postgre is free, you get what you pay for. I think the time it will take in properly configuring/making sure the DB is optimized will outweigh the cost of a MSSQL at the end of the day since MS did (in my opinion) quite a nice job in n00bifying their software.

For example, I had a client who had 7 million products on his online store. The company who did it did it in a Classic ASP/MySQL mix (**** knows why, I'd have gone full LAMP). The database couldn't handle more than 100k products due to it's design/setup. It just didn't want to take full advantage of the RAM even after I spent weeks (even months) reading up on MySQL (which I never used before then) and implemented most of what I could. I got the "search" down from 20min+ to less than 2min, but it was still *minutes* (for 100k, not even 7mil)

In the end I decided to test MS SQL instead and see what I get. Loaded it up, loaded a copy of the database on, 30 seconds, no optimization, no faffing about, it just gave me an extremely fast response compared. Run it through optimization, and not only could they do a search in less than 2 seconds, they could do so on the entire product line they had

So buying > free unless you know what you're doing and you're some kind of db kung fu master

However I did learn a lot about MySQL and the options it provides and how indexes work and the internal workings of a db though

If you're doing full text searches i would have rather implemented Solr/Sphinx.

We are building our entire platform on this postgres, its insanely powerful. You just need to know what you are actually doing its not just click, next, next like MS SQL people enjoy.

 

[DominionZA]

If you're doing full text searches i would have rather implemented Solr/Sphinx.

We are building our entire platform on this postgres, its insanely powerful. You just need to know what you are actually doing its not just click, next, next like MS SQL people enjoy.

That's a bit nasty and presumptuous.

I work in MS SQL every day of my life. Trying to figure out where I go click, next, next. You going to have to elaborate.

 

[icyrus]

As a technical product, PostgreSQL is as good as any of the commercial DBs for over 90% of the jobs you would need an RDBMS for. However, what you are really paying for when you deal with a big company is support rather than the product itself.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

I find their is a mindset shift from clients when they pay for the DB versus not paying for it. When someone has to pay for their SQL licence, then its not that hard to convince them to also spend the required dosh to get the hardware they need. But when people get it for free, then they expect the server to be free.

I used PostgreSQL for 5 years in my previous job and I love the DB but we had crap hardware. Where I now work we pay a small fortune for MySQL but we also have the correct hardware and admin staff.

 

[creeper]

I find their is a mindset shift from clients when they pay for the DB versus not paying for it. When someone has to pay for their SQL licence, then its not that hard to convince them to also spend the required dosh to get the hardware they need. But when people get it for free, then they expect the server to be free.

I used PostgreSQL for 5 years in my previous job and I love the DB but we had crap hardware. Where I now work we pay a small fortune for MySQL but we also have the correct hardware and admin staff.

For those that don't want to go MySQL, MariaDB is a fork of MySQL and works fine.

 

[guest2013-1]

If you're doing full text searches i would have rather implemented Solr/Sphinx.

We are building our entire platform on this postgres, its insanely powerful. You just need to know what you are actually doing its not just click, next, next like MS SQL people enjoy.

I actually did look into that option, but since the client was already on a MS server, and the project was going on 2 years (when I pitched in to rescue/launch it), going the Ms SQL route was the easiest at the time

 

[InvisibleJim]

I find their is a mindset shift from clients when they pay for the DB versus not paying for it. When someone has to pay for their SQL licence, then its not that hard to convince them to also spend the required dosh to get the hardware they need. But when people get it for free, then they expect the server to be free.

What you are talking about here is perceived value rather than actual value. There is a tangible cost benefit to your customer in the fact that your software will run on a free db back end. Potentially, (some of) the money that they don't spend on an MS or Oracle license is additional money that they could spend on your services or on better hardware which is a win-win situation for everyone.

If I save you money or make you money through my product, that is about the best justification that you can have for charging a bit more for that product.

 

[zippy]

That's a bit nasty and presumptuous.

I work in MS SQL every day of my life. Trying to figure out where I go click, next, next. You going to have to elaborate.

Had an actuary sitting next to me the other day bragging about MS SQL click, click, click, job done.....

he was whining because he now has to learn SQL as we are migrating their data to Oracle.

 

[semaphore]

That's a bit nasty and presumptuous.

I work in MS SQL every day of my life. Trying to figure out where I go click, next, next. You going to have to elaborate.

You getting offended because of the ease of use of MS Sql ? Lol ok. Dont worry your database is awesome.

 

[semaphore]

Had an actuary sitting next to me the other day bragging about MS SQL click, click, click, job done.....

he was whining because he now has to learn SQL as we are migrating their data to Oracle.

I would love to use Oracle, but yeah there costing for our solution is not viable at this point. But when budget allows for it.

 

[creeper]

Had an actuary sitting next to me the other day bragging about MS SQL click, click, click, job done.....

he was whining because he now has to learn SQL as we are migrating their data to Oracle.

Actuaries get paid a lot of money and they are classified as "really smart" He can figure it out.

 

[ActivateD]

At university we getting taught SQL using MySql thank goodness. I have learnt so much using command prompt and not click click of Microsoft stuff. But I read there is a shift from MySql to MariaDB.