I'm not familiar with NuoDB, since I work mostly with MS SQL, but it seems that it's main advantage is that it can be scaled very easy:
"In the interest of full disclosure, I work for NuoDB as a technology
evangelist. I have also had very good experiences with SQL Server in the
past. However, I don't think it's necessary to view this posting through
the lens of SQL Server vs. NuoDB. In my opinion it's about selecting the
right tool for the job. NuoDB has introduced a new innovation that enables
developers to build their applications on a single logical database and
scale their database horizontally to handle predictable and unpredictable
spikes in traffic . Horizontal scaling happens completely transparently and
without any changes to the application itself. Feel free to try it for
yourself. We ship with a sample eCommerce application that demonstrates our
capabilities. We also ship with our own ADO.NET driver so you can continue
to use the great tools that come with Visual Studio and SQL Server for
development and reporting."
On the other hand, 2014 has also increased scalability:
"SQL Server 2014 has increased the number of logical processors to 640 and
memory up to 4 TBs."
I can't imagine the company where this won't be enough :)
The hardware is the last option for dealing with performance problems. The
right architecture and database design usually solves all performance
problems.
There is so many features in ms sql server, years of studying of the best
developers in the world, still far from perfect but could be used in many
different scenarios. I guess NuoDB is more narrow, oriented to some
specific scenario and for that scenario could be better than MS SQL. As I
say, I'm not familiar with it. But from description it is very positive.
So, it depends on your needs. You must discover your needs and than find if
NuoDB would satisfy them.
And also budget have usually important role.
MySQL has far less features than MSSQL, but it comes with less cost and
since users typically use only 30% of MS SQL features, it could be enough.
So, again, it depends on your needs.
In our company budget for SQL server is not the case, so we decided for MS
SQL, which is overall better(in the way that it covers more scenarios)
product than my sql, probably more comparable with oracle than mysql.
And also important aspect is that your needs could change, and with MS SQL
you are probably on safe side while with my sql you could got stuck.
Sometimes it is better to buy the product which could support the most,
even if many of the features you don't need today.
e-Learning Systems Developer Analyst at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Vendor
2014-07-10T15:02:05Z
Jul 10, 2014
Every one has its good and its not so good parts. MySQL is suffering from derived queries index usage, but it can simulate variables assignments as in a while/end loop when processing rows. MS SQL cannot simulate loops with conditional variable assignments in statements, but it is optimizing multiple layers of queries.
On the other hand NuoDB is designed for cloud storage/access and on the spot manipulation of configuration, where MS & My can have clusters pre defined and configured, Hadoop is an extension for MySQL to make it work in clusters. MS SQL also supports clusters within a defined group or with extra configuration steps for different cluster groups. All servers support big data but every one has its limitations and it really depends on your functionality requirements. Remember also cloud data are open from everywhere and extra security steps should be planned for compliance and regulations on top of the standard security credentials and filtering which apply to secured physical office placed servers.
There are three authentication modes possible for SQL Server:
Windows authentication mode
SQL Server authentication
Mixed mode
You should select the one that is most useful for you - but from personal experience, I would not recommend the mixed mode. We were using it in my company, and it may cause confusion and make things a little slower, so I recommend you stick to a single type of authentication. Since Windows authentication is always available and cannot be disabled, we chose that, since we all had Windows accounts to begin with. We use Microsoft products in our line of work, so we use this method of authentication for all of them.
My company connects through SQL Server authentication. We have company Windows accounts, but we do not want to connect the two, out of security concerns and to keep things separated for our own purposes. Through this authentication method, you create a new password and username, and you must set a very strong password, as the product requires it. I know that I do not really protect my personal Windows account well enough, so using this method is much better, as you create specific credentials for it and do not use it for any other purposes. After all, you want to preserve your data as safely as possible, and I think this method of logging in is the best and most secure.
SQL Server has helped my organization through partitioning to distribute the workload, as it splits them up into smaller pieces so the machines can easily deal with it. However, this comes with a high price, as the standard editions do offer not very good partitioning. We were forced to pay for the Enterprise edition of the solution and only then got what we were seeking. But I should say that it really is worth the money, despite it being quite expensive. This feature has helped our organization make the work process more organized and save time for our employees.
I am not part of the IT department so I can not tell you in great detail about the technical improvements it has made for our company. I speak from personal experience when I say this product has been valuable in terms of log shipping. This is something I can personally vouch for, and this product has facilitated the process through its features. We were using a different tool before, and switched to SQL Server upon recommendation. I can see a big difference between the two products when it comes to log shipping, so I can say this has been improved through SQL Server for my company since we started using it.
Download our free Relational Databases Tools Report and find out what your peers are saying about NuoDB, Cockroach, Oracle, and more! Updated: April 2023.
Hi,
I'm not familiar with NuoDB, since I work mostly with MS SQL, but it seems that it's main advantage is that it can be scaled very easy:
"In the interest of full disclosure, I work for NuoDB as a technology
evangelist. I have also had very good experiences with SQL Server in the
past. However, I don't think it's necessary to view this posting through
the lens of SQL Server vs. NuoDB. In my opinion it's about selecting the
right tool for the job. NuoDB has introduced a new innovation that enables
developers to build their applications on a single logical database and
scale their database horizontally to handle predictable and unpredictable
spikes in traffic . Horizontal scaling happens completely transparently and
without any changes to the application itself. Feel free to try it for
yourself. We ship with a sample eCommerce application that demonstrates our
capabilities. We also ship with our own ADO.NET driver so you can continue
to use the great tools that come with Visual Studio and SQL Server for
development and reporting."
On the other hand, 2014 has also increased scalability:
"SQL Server 2014 has increased the number of logical processors to 640 and
memory up to 4 TBs."
I can't imagine the company where this won't be enough :)
The hardware is the last option for dealing with performance problems. The
right architecture and database design usually solves all performance
problems.
There is so many features in ms sql server, years of studying of the best
developers in the world, still far from perfect but could be used in many
different scenarios. I guess NuoDB is more narrow, oriented to some
specific scenario and for that scenario could be better than MS SQL. As I
say, I'm not familiar with it. But from description it is very positive.
So, it depends on your needs. You must discover your needs and than find if
NuoDB would satisfy them.
And also budget have usually important role.
MySQL has far less features than MSSQL, but it comes with less cost and
since users typically use only 30% of MS SQL features, it could be enough.
So, again, it depends on your needs.
In our company budget for SQL server is not the case, so we decided for MS
SQL, which is overall better(in the way that it covers more scenarios)
product than my sql, probably more comparable with oracle than mysql.
And also important aspect is that your needs could change, and with MS SQL
you are probably on safe side while with my sql you could got stuck.
Sometimes it is better to buy the product which could support the most,
even if many of the features you don't need today.
br, Simon
Every one has its good and its not so good parts. MySQL is suffering from derived queries index usage, but it can simulate variables assignments as in a while/end loop when processing rows. MS SQL cannot simulate loops with conditional variable assignments in statements, but it is optimizing multiple layers of queries.
On the other hand NuoDB is designed for cloud storage/access and on the spot manipulation of configuration, where MS & My can have clusters pre defined and configured, Hadoop is an extension for MySQL to make it work in clusters. MS SQL also supports clusters within a defined group or with extra configuration steps for different cluster groups. All servers support big data but every one has its limitations and it really depends on your functionality requirements. Remember also cloud data are open from everywhere and extra security steps should be planned for compliance and regulations on top of the standard security credentials and filtering which apply to secured physical office placed servers.
SQL Server for big data but MySQL for small data. I support MySQL.
Please check out this link: http://db-engines.com/en/system/Microsoft+SQL+Server%3BMySQL%3BNuoDB