PHP vs ColdFusion vs MS SQL vs MySQL

[stryka]

Ok people... i know this has been debated before... but please provide some feedback... cuz i am leaning towards migrating from NT to UNIX to take advantage of some PHP/MySQL apps and session mgmt

I currently have a COLDFUSION/MS SQL site... i will list my pros and cons...

NT CF/MS SQL Pros
- CF is a easy language, MS SQL has a great GUI, MySQL and PHP is now available via some NT hosting or you can configure it via a remote MySQL connection, can create customized apps

NT CF/MS SQL Cons
- not many Virtual Hosts' servers can handle the resource strain, Dedicated servers are too expensive, CF was bought by Macromedia, uptime is bad

Unix PhPMySQL Pros
- Virtual and Dedicated hosting is much cheaper, my guestbook and Msgboard will be PHP, could learn PHP and have the MSG board control session mgmt for the entire site, or i can convert to PostNuke, i hear MySQL handles records really quick, uptime is great, MyPHPADMIN helps in the GUI department, Apps are FREE or can learn to create custom appz

Unix PhPMySQL Cons
- i have to learn PHP... hmmm... what else...


Ok people... what are your experiences... I want to make the plunge to Unix... cuz I ultimately want good session mgmt throughout my site... or maybe cuz I'm lazy and want all those kewl PHP apps... BTW... CGI is a resource hog...

laterz...

[pnathan]

I looked into CF and NT/ASP in a previous life and did not like them.

I have been using MySQL/PHP for the last 12 months and have no complaints. And PHP is not that hard to learn. It is very powerful, I recently sent out a HTML neewsletter to over 10,000 subscribers using PHP/MySQL and it only took 2 mins to process.

[westmich]

IMHO, Cold Fusion is a great tool for quickly developing robust Web applications. I've been working with it for over a year on at least 40 projects. That said, I am considering moving to PHP for a couple of reasons: 1) I have worked with ASP, C++, and Java and I really apperciate the ability to use a stronger language for creating functions and what not. CF has introduced user-defined functions in CF 5.0, but it doesn't really compare with being able to create functions and classes like you can in PHP and ASP. 2) We were considering change dedicated hosts, but the cost of a CF server is significant for a small business like ours.

As far as MySQL, it is great for what it was intended - a Web datasource. It is big step up from using Access or a text file, but it simply doesn't support the features and functions that SQL Server, DB2, and Oracle provide. I could not easily, if at all, many of the projects I do with MySQL.

[hillsy]

If you're going all-Unix, perhaps you could consider Postgres...

[pnathan]

westmich

What "features and functions that SQL Server" are you talking about. Can you name a few just to give me an idea what I can look forward to?

Thanks

[westmich]

Features

• Relational Integraty
• Sub-selects
• Stored Procedures
• Triggers
• Atomic Updates/Transactions
• Views
• Data Transformation Services

Here's a great article from Wayne Luke on moving beyond MySQL - http://www.webmasterbase.com/article.php?pid=0&aid=554

[pnathan]

Cheers buddy, much appreciated

[stryka]

edit: hmmm.. juss read the above article... maybe you can still provide your explanation...

Westmich...

I've been trying to understand the Relational integrity thing with Foreign keys and MySQL... first i read it isn't supported then it is... can you explain it in real english...

how do you lose relational integrity in MySQL

I see relational integrity as being able to call a ID from a table that relates to a name and pulling out that name... doesn't MySQL handle that...

eg)

TABLE A
ITEMID NAME
1 apple
2 orange

TABLE B
OrderID ITEMID
1 2


BTW... getting my first PHP MySQL book... looking forward to all this... fooled around and have it setup @ home locally but I want to start from scratch...

[hillsy]

I don't think MySQL supports things like cascading updates/deletes across tables though.

Can't say for sure as I've never really used it much - but that's an important part of referential integrity.

[westmich]

Originally posted by stryka

TABLE A
ITEMID  NAME
1       apple
2       orange

TABLE B
OrderID  ITEMID
1        2
2        7

With RDBMS (Relational Database Management Systems) the second entry in Table B would not be allowed. If you had created a Foriegn Key on ItemID, it simply would not allow you to insert an ItemID into Table B that does not directly correspond to an ItemID in Table A.

This has nothing to do with cascading updates and deletes.

[mw1]

Originally posted by westmich

Here's a great article from Wayne Luke on moving beyond MySQL - http://www.webmasterbase.com/article.php?pid=0&aid=554 [/B]

Don't mean to sound harsh but there are a few major mistakes in that article -

- Postgresql is not realeased under the GPL - it's released under a BSD style license which is very different to the GPL.

- from the article "Postgre SQL is the only open source database server that supports procedural language constructs like stored procedures and triggers".
Thats just plain wrong. eg
Interbase - www.interbase.com
Firebird (interbase fork) - firebirdsql.org
SAPdb - www.sapdb.com
All three are pretty established databases.

Probably a few other minor ones floating around too.

- from the article again "PL/pgSQL is formatted and structured like the PL/SQL code used in Oracle's database server. I'm sure that this is no mistake - and it presents a developer with a good upgrade path involving minimal conversion efforts if you outgrow Postgre."

While I don't diasgree with this there are still differences that can cause problems when switching to Oracle which should be mentioned.
eg Oracles "mutating tables" restriction you get when your using triggers. In Postgresql updating, selecting, deleting from the table that set of the trigger isn't a problem but in Oracle it is.

- Its not postgre SQL - or Postgre its postgresql , one word.

The article seems to have been poorly researched.

[westmich]

- Its not postgre SQL - or Postgre its postgresql , one word.

Not to side-track this post, but I wondered about that too.

I thought it was PostgreSQL pronounced "post-gres-q-l".

[mw1]

Originally posted by westmich

Not to side-track this post, but I wondered about that too.

I thought it was PostgreSQL pronounced "post-gres-q-l".

Exactly how I thought it was pronounced. Saying Postgre is just something I find very annoying.

[MattR]

I prefer to abbreviate it 'Postgres' since I can't figure out how to accurately pronounce 'postgre' (post- gre???) and PostgreSQL is too long Postgre ess que ell... Eh, Postgres.