|SQL SERVER 2005||MySQL|
|1.Commercial Database Paradigm||1.Open Source|
|2.Good for Large enterprise databases.Very fast and robust.||2.Used in Small scale databases|
|3.Performance Tuning as Easily and quickly||3. Performance Tuning not easy as Sql Server 2005|
|5. fail safe and less prone to data corruption||5.MySQL falls short in recovery with its default MyISAM mechanism. The UPS assumes uninterrupted data,and in the event of an unexpected shutdown your data can be lost and the data store corrupted.|
|6. Backup strategy is more efficient by the Differential and filegroupbakup plans||6.Backup methods are not good as compared to Sql
|7. Price high||7. Less Price.|
choosing between a MySQL and SQL Server DBMS is a matter of the scale of the database application. For enterprise-level applications, SQL Server wins hands down. It has advanced set of SQL features, superior replication, clustering, security and management tools.
For lower-tier database applications, MySQL can offer the core functionality you require at a very low cost. Some might argue that the latest offering from MySQL has made the open source database system enterprise “worthy”, but this remains to be seen. The advanced functionalities implemented are yet to stabilise and be rationalised across the database engine. What’s more, Microsoft has upped the ante with even more advanced features of its own. It’s up to MySQL to rise up to the challenge, but at this point in time MySQL is nowhere near the competitive enterprise field of the more established SQL Server 2005.