Percona Server for MySQL vs. SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE), legacy

Percona Server for MySQL covers 100% of our requirements in terms of our OLTP traffic and provides the High Availability levels required through a typical primary and 2 replica's using semi-synchronous replication. We're able to scale our writes using sharding, but a true distributed database would be a great option on top of this. In terms of OLAP traffic, we leverage columns stores available, but Percona Server fairs well

High-performance, high-concurrency transactions are well suited for ASE. ASE is lacking some features in my opinion such as history tables, however there are ways to implement them via workarounds or by using Replication Server. I do think the way the ASE parser and optimizer works are far superior to other products as it is a true cost-based optimizer and the order of the tables in the FROM clause does not really matter although a good SQL coder will place the tables in a meaningful order to make the SQL more readable. ASE is good for applications that require high availability and can be used for mission critical systems.

Incentivized

• Faster than other server solutions
• Installation and configuration process is easy from the user's standpoint
• Easy to learn and good support

Incentivized

• Easy to setup and maintain
• Reliable, rarely has major hiccups requiring reboots or crashes
• Very responsive with complicated queries spanning various tablespaces and hundreds of millions of rows

Incentivized

• Better documentation
• A better UI

• Full database encryption - need to utilize external keys vs internal - for better separation of duties.
• History Tables.

Incentivized

Our licenses are perpetual. It is the support that we will be renewing. We will renew because we continue to use and receive value from the product.

Incentivized

It is easy to install and use. Using it along with Percona Monitoring and Management makes it even easier to use.

Incentivized

It does almost everything we need and for the things it doesn't do natively, we are still able to do using other features. For example, natively history tables weren't supported but we were able to create them using triggers.

Incentivized

We are using opensource so we have not used customer support.

Incredibly responsive, saving us countless hours in troubleshooting.

Incentivized

Performance and stability sets Percona Server for MySQL apart from the rest. Percona embraces the upstream version and contributes towards the upstream version making MySQL stronger on two fronts and thus having a much larger community. Many quality contributions have been made by Percona into the base code. Percona provides great tools to support Percona Server for MySQL and this makes the monitoring and management easier

Much less effort than Oracle. Much better customer support than Oracle. Roughly equivalent to SQL Server in performance and ease of use. Much better customer service than SQL Server. Different ballpark from IQ. Same customer service.

Incentivized

• At the performance level, it maintains and even improves other open-source databases such as MariaDB or some commercial ones such as Oracle.
• If we compare it with MySQL, we could have up to 50% improvement in performance.
• For some small companies or startups, the price of the complete solution and the support can be a bit high.

Incentivized

• Negative - Costs a lot ... but so do they all.
• Positive - It does what we need it to do.

Incentivized