Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
IBM Informix vs Microsoft SQL Server: What are the differences?
Key Differences between IBM Informix and Microsoft SQL Server
IBM Informix and Microsoft SQL Server are both popular relational database management systems (RDBMS) used by organizations to manage and store their data. While both databases share similarities in terms of functionality, there are several key differences that set them apart.
Data Replication and High Availability: IBM Informix offers a unique feature called High Availability Data Replication (HDR), which allows for the automatic replication of data across multiple servers to ensure high availability and minimize downtime. On the other hand, Microsoft SQL Server provides features like Always On Availability Groups and Database Mirroring for achieving high availability and disaster recovery.
Database Scalability: IBM Informix is known for its ability to scale horizontally, which means it can easily handle large amounts of data by distributing it across multiple servers. In contrast, while Microsoft SQL Server also supports scaling horizontally through technologies like Always On Availability Groups, it is more suitable for vertical scaling, where the database server is upgraded with more resources.
Cost: IBM Informix has a reputation for being more cost-effective compared to Microsoft SQL Server. Informix offers flexible pricing options based on the features and requirements of the organization, making it a popular choice for businesses with budget constraints. Microsoft SQL Server, on the other hand, typically has higher licensing costs, especially for large-scale deployments.
Platform Support: Microsoft SQL Server runs primarily on Windows operating systems, but it also has limited support for Linux. On the other hand, IBM Informix provides broader platform support, including Windows, Linux, and various UNIX systems, giving organizations more flexibility in choosing their preferred operating system.
Ease of Use and Administration: Microsoft SQL Server is often considered more user-friendly and easier to administer compared to IBM Informix. SQL Server's management tools, such as SQL Server Management Studio, provide a comprehensive and intuitive interface for database administration tasks. Informix, though powerful, may have a steeper learning curve and requires more expertise to set up and manage effectively.
Feature Set: Both IBM Informix and Microsoft SQL Server offer a rich set of features. However, they differ in some specific capabilities. For example, Informix includes robust features for time-series data management, making it suitable for industries like finance and manufacturing. On the other hand, Microsoft SQL Server provides advanced analytics and business intelligence features such as SQL Server Analysis Services and Power BI, which are well-suited for data analysis and reporting.
In summary, key differences between IBM Informix and Microsoft SQL Server include data replication and high availability capabilities, scalability options, cost, platform support, ease of use and administration, as well as specific feature sets tailored to different industry needs.
I am a Microsoft SQL Server programmer who is a bit out of practice. I have been asked to assist on a new project. The overall purpose is to organize a large number of recordings so that they can be searched. I have an enormous music library but my songs are several hours long. I need to include things like time, date and location of the recording. I don't have a problem with the general database design. I have two primary questions:
- I need to use either MySQL or PostgreSQL on a Linux based OS. Which would be better for this application?
- I have not dealt with a sound based data type before. How do I store that and put it in a table? Thank you.
Hi Erin,
Honestly both databases will do the job just fine. I personally prefer Postgres.
Much more important is how you store the audio. While you could technically use a blob type column, it's really not ideal to be storing audio files which are "several hours long" in a database row. Instead consider storing the audio files in an object store (hosted options include backblaze b2 or aws s3) and persisting the key (which references that object) in your database column.
Hi Erin, Chances are you would want to store the files in a blob type. Both MySQL and Postgres support this. Can you explain a little more about your need to store the files in the database? I may be more effective to store the files on a file system or something like S3. To answer your qustion based on what you are descibing I would slighly lean towards PostgreSQL since it tends to be a little better on the data warehousing side.
Hey Erin! I would recommend checking out Directus before you start work on building your own app for them. I just stumbled upon it, and so far extremely happy with the functionalities. If your client is just looking for a simple web app for their own data, then Directus may be a great option. It offers "database mirroring", so that you can connect it to any database and set up functionality around it!
Hi Erin! First of all, you'd probably want to go with a managed service. Don't spin up your own MySQL installation on your own Linux box. If you are on AWS, thet have different offerings for database services. Standard RDS vs. Aurora. Aurora would be my preferred choice given the benefits it offers, storage optimizations it comes with... etc. Such managed services easily allow you to apply new security patches and upgrades, set up backups, replication... etc. Doing this on your own would either be risky, inefficient, or you might just give up. As far as which database to chose, you'll have the choice between Postgresql, MySQL, Maria DB, SQL Server... etc. I personally would recommend MySQL (latest version available), as the official tooling for it (MySQL Workbench) is great, stable, and moreover free. Other database services exist, I'd recommend you also explore Dynamo DB.
Regardless, you'd certainly only keep high-level records, meta data in Database, and the actual files, most-likely in S3, so that you can keep all options open in terms of what you'll do with them.
Hi Erin,
- Coming from "Big" DB engines, such as Oracle or MSSQL, go for PostgreSQL. You'll get all the features you need with PostgreSQL.
- Your case seems to point to a "NoSQL" or Document Database use case. Since you get covered on this with PostgreSQL which achieves excellent performances on JSON based objects, this is a second reason to choose PostgreSQL. MongoDB might be an excellent option as well if you need "sharding" and excellent map-reduce mechanisms for very massive data sets. You really should investigate the NoSQL option for your use case.
- Starting with AWS Aurora is an excellent advise. since "vendor lock-in" is limited, but I did not check for JSON based object / NoSQL features.
- If you stick to Linux server, the PostgreSQL or MySQL provided with your distribution are straightforward to install (i.e. apt install postgresql). For PostgreSQL, make sure you're comfortable with the pg_hba.conf, especially for IP restrictions & accesses.
Regards,
I recommend Postgres as well. Superior performance overall and a more robust architecture.
Pros of IBM Informix
Pros of Microsoft SQL Server
- Reliable and easy to use139
- High performance102
- Great with .net95
- Works well with .net65
- Easy to maintain56
- Azure support21
- Full Index Support17
- Always on17
- Enterprise manager is fantastic10
- In-Memory OLTP Engine9
- Easy to setup and configure2
- Security is forefront2
- Faster Than Oracle1
- Decent management tools1
- Great documentation1
- Docker Delivery1
- Columnstore indexes1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of IBM Informix
Cons of Microsoft SQL Server
- Expensive Licensing4
- Microsoft2