MySQL or MSSQL for a large project?

Question

MySQL

Good evening, dear users. Before me was the task of choosing a DBMS for web hosting for a large project (in the future). I was looking for various comparisons, but in general I came across some kind of balance. If mysql is stronger in some ways, then mssql is weaker in some ways and vice versa. Are there those who know who can roll out a short list of differences and what, in their opinion, will be better? And what will be more difficult (in installing / configuring / creating a database). As far as I know, mysql usually comes by default to many hosting sites and it does not need to be downloaded / installed separately, etc. And mssql is also quite expensive.
PS At the moment I've only worked with MySQL.

Answer 1

I wouldn't bother looking for the best solution from scratch, if the best database existed, the rest would die in obscurity. In your case, I would use MySQL, at least at the initial stage, and here's why:
1) It's free
2) Muscle is a good, solid middle peasant in his class, that is, he can do almost everything and at the same time does not sag much in performance.
3) It has a HUGE number of docks and user cases, as well as tutorials and tips on optimizing for a specific task.
4) When changing the database (if needed), you will most likely only have to change the database driver (subject to a competent architecture) and carefully transfer the database dump.
5) About MSSQL - until recently, it did not have native support for UTF-8, instead it had (and still seems to have) its own UCS, which is multibyte, but some kind of its own (as always with ms), at one time to please "Speeds" were set by a server with a msskule, as a result, they practically did not receive any increase, but they got a hemorrhoid with the translation of encodings.
6) If the project really needs a discontinuous database at the limit of modern possibilities - look towards the inmemory database, for example, a tarantula or something nosy, such as a radish and others like it.

Answer 2

PostgreSQL
mssql historically not for pages, unless you're talking about Express Edition

Answer 3

The question should be expanded to be precise: MariaDB, MySQL, PerconaDB, MSSQL?
MariaDB - stylishly fashionable youth, a bunch of enthusiastic users of simple sites and all kinds of sites.
PerconaDB is a nice try.
MySQL - sawed by a company that knows what legacy, testing is, and generally knows more about databases than milestones. You can build a working cluster, set up live replication. Lots of different storage engines. If none suits you, write raw data to disk.
MSSQL - storage and processing of big data.
Now, based on this, you can narrow the search area: the project requires high-quality support for the interaction between the DBMS and the backend (there is some kind of framework), in this regard, the muscle compares favorably. Many large web projects use muscle - lots of detailed information on preparing large and fault tolerant systems. As for MySQL itself: no matter how the hipsters scream that the great and terrible Oracle is sawing it, the company has many years of experience in creating applications that easily tolerate updates and generally know a lot about databases.

Answer 4

Perhaps I will not help specifically on this issue, but for large projects, PostgreSQL or a self-written DBMS is chosen.

Answer 5

PostgreSQL. I recently came across MySQL again after a long break. To be honest, very disappointed. MySQL, as it was, has remained some kind of crutch inconvenient craft. Already several times got up on a rake with utf8mb3. In 2018! It's just some kind of facepalm.