how that can come, that table locking is faster than versioning? from
how i understand versioning it can't be slower. and saying that "possible
access problems" with table can be avoided be specially designing
application. God! i must design specially for mysql, being locking whole
tables.
this page shows that they are low-end even in the mind. they
didn't implemet constraints/subselects/views/triggers/full joins, but
they've got packed bases and compressed client/server protocol! wow.
must be cool.
personally, when i tried 7.0.2, with triggers/constraints/views and
other cool stuff (transactions!) i said to myself "yep, that's the
db you need". and now, whatever they say, when i hear somebody doing
billing system (!) on mysql, i just shrug my shoulders. in russian
it called "everybody goes insane his own way".
btw, what's related to in-memory quick db, what prevents you from
creating memory filesystem and put postgres dbs there? in *bsd it's not
a problem, on linux i believe too...
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:29:55PM +1000, Justin Clift wrote:
> We can always ask them to change things. The thing which strike me as
>
> Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > Has anyone seen this page on Mysql.org comparing PostgreSQL to MySQL:
> > >
> > > http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
> >
> > Yeah, I've had a few developers show it to me... the best part
--
Denis A. Doroshenko [GPRS engineer] .-. _|_ |
[Omnitel Ltd., T.Sevcenkos st. 25, Vilnius, Lithuania] | | _ _ _ .| _ |
[Phone: +370 9863486 E-mail: d.doroshenko@omnitel.net] |_|| | || |||(/_|_
