3

My question isn't getting any traction.

And yesterday the decision what solution to use was made, so any answers that would have helped make that decision is now not needed. (But they would still be interesting for me to have for future decisions.)

Should it be deleted?

| |
4

Look at the upvotes: 2 for the question and 1 for an answer. There is no reason to delete your question.

| |
  • Well the one answer isn't much of a help and I doubt any more quality answers are coming. I wasn't even sure it should be asked in the first place. – Nifle Feb 12 '11 at 14:54
2

It can be closed but I think it's fine. I vote to leave it. Someone else is bound to benefit from it. But do update with an answer of what you decided on and then mark it as answer.

| |
  • It's not as if I decided anything. I was just supplying data and lacked datapoints. As it turned out the question did not provide any more datapoints and the decision was made without them. – Nifle Feb 13 '11 at 1:34
  • 2
    @Nifle, what data points were used in the decision (ie: from other sources)? – Andrew Bickerton Feb 16 '11 at 11:06
  • @Andrew - I can't be sure since I wasn't present when the decision was made (the choice was SQL Server). But my guess is that it boiled down to: It's cheaper and it's is a supported database. – Nifle Feb 16 '11 at 20:17
  • @Andrew - Or where you interested in my MSSQL vs MySQL list? – Nifle Feb 16 '11 at 20:19
  • 1
    @Nifle I'd be interested in seeing your MSSQL vs MySQL list in an answer to that question (I think it would provide good info for the next person to face that quandry) – Andrew Bickerton Feb 17 '11 at 8:40
  • @Andrew - I'm afraid my list is almost totally devoid of technical facts. As both db's where known to perform well with liferay the differences that mattered to us where almost exclusively organizational. But a few points: (1 mssql had a proper cluster to run on (2 mssql has "better" tools for statistics/performance tuning (3 mssql was cheaper (4 mssql would be "easier" to administrate (ie not us) – Nifle Feb 17 '11 at 20:05
  • I'm surprised at 2) mssql was cheaper... I would of considered it more expensive (though it's the classic upfront cost more, but ongoing costs/switchover costs/training etc.. are lower) - putting an answer up where you talk about the non-technical issues would be interesting (ie: preface with 'assuming there are no technical hurdles in your choice of db engine' here are some other factors that need to be considered [existing knowledge/infrastructure/direction/etc...]) – Andrew Bickerton Feb 18 '11 at 9:27
  • @Andrew - What you have to take into consideration is that all our billing is internal, so real world cost might not necessary be relevant. For us, two servers would be billed X-"man-hours"/week to run and keep patched, and the price of that made using MSSQL on the cluster cheaper. – Nifle Feb 18 '11 at 18:07
1

I think it has value if you generalize it slightly to "pick database for technical or political reasons?"

| |
  • IMO this would push it even more towards OT or Subjective. If you (or anyone else) want to spend some effort to make it more "generalized" please do. Or perhaps you could make it a CW so that anyone could edit it to fit in better. – Nifle Feb 12 '11 at 16:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .