Link Details

A bit short, but sufficient for the beginner.

Though this statement shows some lack of knowledge: "Not being locked down to a single storage engine (like Oracle), means you can optimize and choose the best tool for the job."

With Oracle you don't have to chose, because it delivers row-level-locking, transactions and good read-performance at the same time. With MySQL you "have" to chose, because no storage-engine is capable of that. Let's see how "Falcon" will turn out.

Another one: "InnoDB engine was acquired by Oracle on 1991."
It was 2005.

Thank you Lars

Yes Oracle is definitely a more robust database with plenty of features that are lacking in MySQL.

However being able to select a storage engine means you can optimize the best tool for each job. This is why MySQL delivers far better performance for specialized tasks.

While we love Oracle 11g, arguments can be made in favor of MySQL in terms of performance, stability, ease of use, and cost.

Some things unique to MySQL that Oracle does not offer include: Fast connections, Easy replication, Overall ease of use.

If you don't have a dedicated DBA and approx $50k annually for Oracle Enterprise edition license fees, Oracle is not an option.
,

Hi,

I didn't say I'd prefer Oracle in any case. In fact, personally, I like MySQL much more. But when it comes to having to chose a storage engine, I believe Oracle wins in the "ease of use"-league. When you design mission-critical databases with MySQL, you'll have to invest a *lot* of planning into choosing the right engine for each table...

(Of course, you should do that anyway, but in this case, it can mean a lot of trouble, if an inexperienced designer is involved in the planning. And when MySQL is in use, chances are higher, that exactly that is the case.)

Other than that, I agree that MySQL is much easier to use.