Need something better then MySQL, and cheaper then Oracle.

I was just wondering what would be a good database to use for very large storage applications.

Currently I'm using MySQL which I hear can be fast with millions of records provided you build a good index.

I was also looking at Oracle. I downloaded their price list and it said their standard database was around $400, I then went to their store and saw it said the same database is listed around $20 000, with additional $391 per person using it, with a 5 person minimum. (So naturally I don't think I want to use Oracle)

I was wondering if anyone could suggest a good database that would be able to handle a lot of records, and possibly using a grid, (Networking computers together to act as one) but is a bit more reasonably priced then $20k.

I'll be using multiple tables which will hold records based on their content, (Categories) and each table will have 6 rows, of which one will be searched, and 3 others will just be displayed if the row is used.

each table will have 6 rows? you want microsoft access

you probably meant 6 columns

if you're only indexing one column, why not mysql?

take a look at postgresql too

rudy

oops, sorry about that. It is 6 columns.

I don't know which OS your server will be running, if it is Linux (or some *nix based OS) you should have a close a look at Postgres.
Firebird is very good as well, and it has a good Windows implementation as well. So if you need to run on Windows, it's worth looking at as well. Use 1.5RC7 (don't be taken back by the "Release Candidate" label, it is most likely going to be the final release)
Both of them are very reliable and proven to handle large databases.
None of them has grid computing though.

I think that the best clustering among opensource databases is of MySQL.
The other two great open databases are PostgreSQL and Firebird.
On the commercial side, why not look at DB2, Sybase or MSSQL, they should all be priced more reasonably than Oracle.

I'm not too concerned about which OS I'm using, I can switch if one proves to be better then the other.

You're giving me something to go on. It's sounding like MySQL seems to be one of the best open source because of its clustering abilities.

If you can choose your OS then go for Linux, it's as stable as other unices (more than win anyway) and is the OS of choice for Oracle and IBM, the two big ones.
Note that MySQL has some little problems on windows, like not being able to kill connections ... probably Firebird is the most stable on Windows.

I think I'll try to stay away from windows; they just don't seem to be able to offer anything decent for a good price.

I've been reading up on MySQL and it seems like a smart choice. Low start up cost, low maintenance, very reliable, very fast, and it can handle large amounts of data.

http://www.mysql.com/press/user_sto...unications.html

MySQL does not have clustering, as the
word is typically defined. The closest thing
MySQL has to clustering is replication, which
is not the same thing. MySQL does not
have the capabilities to handle super-large
databases. Their own documentation says
as much.

According to the link I posted one company is already using it with 27 different servers and has their database closining on 600 gigs.

Maybe this is with some modification, or maybe I'm misinterpreting the statement.

And nowhere in that link did it say MySQL
does clustering. It did, however, say they
were using replication, as I noted above.