On Jue 12 Jun 2003 10:50, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 08:05, Martin Marques wrote:
> > On Mié 11 Jun 2003 12:29, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
> > > 3) If your point was to move to a relational database, then you
> > > should choose Postgres. MySQL, although it's SQL, hardly qualifies
> > > as relational
> >
> > MySQL doesn't have relations at all, unless you put the InnoDB
> > module, which stamps down performance.
> >
> > An example I tried to do on a MySQL without InnoDB was:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE testing (
> > id INT,
> > word VARCHAR(20) REFERENCES other_table("word")
> > );
> >
> > (knowing that other_table exists (I prefiously created it) and has
> > word as a VARCHAR(20) field).
> >
> > An error is what I got.
>
> A table *is* a relation. You seem to be referring to foreign keys.
> Maybe MySQL has a different syntax?
Sorry, you are right about that. I was talking about references of primary
keys/foreign keys.
Any way, the syntax was right, the InnoDB module was missing, as is said
here:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/InnoDB_foreign_key_constraints.html
--
Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera,
si podés usar PostgreSQL?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
