On Wed, 5 May 2004, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Bruce wrote:
>
> > We've got a raging debate going on now on whether we should move from a
> > Foxpro back end to either PostgreSQL or MySQL.
> >
> > It's an accounting application and I feel that Postgres would be the better
> > choice. Some other people (like my boss) thinks that MySQL would be better
> > choice. His reasoning is that MySQL gets more publicity so it must be
> > better. He says that since the Sabre airline reservation system and Yahoo
> > run with MySQL, they are the best. Period.
> >
> > I'm sure Postgres has a couple prestige organizations that use database. If
> > I could come up with some big names, I'm pretty sure we could make everyone
> > into believers. Unfortunately, the only thing close to a "name" on the
> > website is the company BSAF.
> >
> > Do you know any other well-known names?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> Just try this simple test in MySQL and see if the boss still thinks it's
> suitable for accounting:
>
> mysql> create table test (i1 int, n1 numeric(8,2));
> Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)
>
> mysql> insert into test values (10000000000000,100000000000.345678);
> Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
>
> mysql> select * from test;
> +------------+------------+
> | i1 | n1 |
> +------------+------------+
> | 2147483647 | 9999999.99 |
> +------------+------------+
> 1 row in set (0.00 sec)
>
>
> Wow, inspires you with confidence, huh?
as a followup, here's some more confidence inspiring behaviour from MySQL
(my version is what shipped with RH 7.2, 3.23.41.
mysql> create table testg (t1 numeric(30,4));
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)
mysql> insert into testg values (12345678901234567890.1234);
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
mysql> select * from testg;
+---------------------------+
| t1 |
+---------------------------+
| 12345678901234567168.0000 |
+---------------------------+
