On MovieTome: Our Favorite 'Twilight' Parodies
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 26 of 84:
Next »
« Previous
Nonsense question
Since you already established that none of the other brands are this should be no argument.
Mysql has three different storage engines of witch InnoDB supports transactions, locks etc. etc.
MyIsam is not the only choice you have with MySQL.

From their website:
nnoDB provides MySQL with a transaction-safe (ACID compliant) storage engine with commit, rollback, and crash recovery capabilities. InnoDB does locking on the row level and also provides an Oracle-style consistent non-locking read in SELECT statements. These features increase multi-user concurrency and performance. There is no need for lock escalation in InnoDB, because row level locks in InnoDB fit in very small space. InnoDB also supports FOREIGN KEY constraints.

The thing I realy mis is views. I can work around that by using temprorary tables but having views would be nice and it would make my programming a lot easier.

I think this whole discussion is a bit pointles. I firmly believe in using the right database for the right purpose. I wouldn't dream of using mysql for the client gegistration software we use but I also wouldn't dream of using oracle for our companies intranet or for the webshops I develop. Oracle is great but the features it offers do have a negative impact on it's performance and frankly Oracle for the companies intranet would be overkill. Even more so when you consider the costs.
Posted by: NemesisNL   Posted on: 04/14/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Disappointing  jorwell | 04/14/04
Read it and weep  Expatriate US Geek | 04/14/04
But my objection is...  jorwell | 04/14/04
Could you be more specific?  Not average Joe | 04/14/04
Glad to be of help  jorwell | 04/14/04
Mmmmm  Not average Joe | 04/14/04
I still think you should read further  jorwell | 04/14/04
Your objection 2 doesn't make sense  jorwell | 04/15/04
In response to #2  nbuwalda | 04/15/04
Good old IBM  jorwell | 04/15/04
not relational  dlevesqu | 04/14/04
Good to hear  jorwell | 04/15/04
"This is the sort of pedantic nonsense ..."  escoles@... | 04/15/04
We are talking about mathematics here  jorwell | 04/15/04
I know you're talking about math  escoles@... | 04/15/04
A mathematical theory is "arbitrary criteria"?  jorwell | 04/15/04
inconsistent results  NemesisNL | 04/16/04
Thank you for your comment  jorwell | 04/16/04
Not ready for prime time  StorageGuru | 04/14/04
Re: Not ready for prime time  ma.rk | 04/14/04
Oracle also isn't relational  jorwell | 04/14/04
I'm curious...  Yen_z | 04/14/04
Regretably none at present  jorwell | 04/14/04
Don't tell my customers  Chad_z | 04/14/04
A question  jorwell | 04/14/04
Nonsense question  NemesisNL | 04/14/04
Dude, you need to calm down  ma.rk | 04/14/04
"It all has its place": Amen. [nt]  escoles@... | 04/15/04
Not ready for prime time?  FederalistPaperBoy | 04/14/04
for which it's suited  SC-man | 04/16/04
I strongly disagree  nycran | 02/17/05
Works great for us.  issthatso | 04/14/04
Not going to be a factor...  Mike Cox | 04/14/04
Oh dear...  jorwell | 04/14/04
Ah, satire and irony  Expatriate US Geek | 04/14/04
Give it a rest, Mike. Please.  AtypicalZork | 04/14/04
Give it a rest, Mike. Please.  SC-man | 04/16/04
SQL-92 has been replaced with...  B.O.F.H. | 04/14/04
Someone needs to  ma.rk | 04/14/04
What's SQL Server?  Linux_Developer | 04/14/04
You'd be more grateful than that  StorageGuru | 04/15/04
Wow, this was really a success!  Linux_Developer | 04/16/04
Hopefully doesn't take cue on security  Xunil_Sierutuf | 04/14/04
SQL Servers Great - But Alternatives are out there  bhafner | 04/14/04
If only...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/14/04
Re: if only  B.O.F.H. | 04/14/04
You know...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/14/04
He was sayig that OSS can be better than "good enough"  j.m.galvin | 04/14/04
Thank you so much for the intrepretation.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/14/04
RE: THank you..  Iain_Peters | 04/14/04
bitty is right --nobody is surprised he couldn't make the connection.  Spam-ZD | 04/14/04
Perhaps this is a fialure to Bitty...  B.O.F.H. | 04/14/04
Reality check  Chad_z | 04/14/04
Did you read the article?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/14/04
Ouch  NemesisNL | 04/14/04
Which CEO and which company are you referring?  B.O.F.H. | 04/14/04
Codd and SQL  jorwell | 04/14/04
Not really a problem  Patrick Jones | 04/14/04
Not really Patrick  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/14/04
MySQL is no more for the desktop than SQL Server or Oracle  B.O.F.H. | 04/14/04
True, that's why the CEO said...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/14/04
e-commerce sites are minimal needs?  B.O.F.H. | 04/14/04
Once more, what did the CEO say?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/14/04
I suspect that you need to move beyond the desktop!  B.O.F.H. | 04/14/04
The real problem is apples v. oranges  escoles@... | 04/15/04
Ok  NemesisNL | 04/14/04
By your logic, then, SQL Server is for those with minimal needs...  escoles@... | 04/15/04
That is where we differ  Patrick Jones | 04/14/04
Beating microsoft at their own game  boxmonkey | 04/14/04
I don't know about that one ...  coffeenite | 04/14/04
well  boxmonkey | 04/14/04
It's a question of which end of the wire does the work  StorageGuru | 04/15/04
What complete and utter garbage  Takalok | 04/14/04
Information direct from...  jorwell | 04/14/04
So you learned to read.  Snippy Clippit | 04/14/04
This isn't a competition  jorwell | 04/14/04
You've misjudged your audience, big boy...  Snippy Clippit | 04/15/04
You can't answer my arguments...  jorwell | 04/15/04
Back the truck uo  ShadeTree | 04/14/04
It easily verifiable  j.m.galvin | 04/14/04
I never questioned...  ShadeTree | 04/15/04
Linux is the cheap choice  StorageGuru | 04/15/04
Absolutely no perspective  nycran | 02/17/05
Vaman DataServer beats MySQL every way  Dev Mehta | 04/15/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here