> I can't get excited about changing this from the standpoint of
> functionality, because AFAICS there is no added functionality.
> But if we're looking bad on a recognized benchmark maybe we
> should do something about it.
We are looking bad on a benchmark designed to show MySQL in the best
possible light, and to show other DBs at their worst. The maintainers
of that benchmark have no interest in changing that emphasis (e.g. we
are still reported as not supporting HAVING, even though we have
demonstrated to them that we do; this is the same pattern we have seen
earlier).
The last time I looked at it, there were ~30% factual errors in the
reported results for Postgres; no telling what errors are there for
other products. imho it is a waste of time to address a bogus
benchmark, unless someone wants to take it up as a hobby. I'm a bit
busy right now ;)
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
