On 2/21/07, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my> wrote:
> At 07:31 PM 2/21/2007, Chad Wagner wrote:
> >On 2/20/07, gustavo halperin
> ><<mailto:ggh.develop@gmail.com>ggh.develop@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I have a friend that ask me why postgresql is better than mysql.
> >I personally prefer posgresql, but she need to give in her work 3 or 4
> >strong reasons for that. I mean not to much technical reasons. Can you
> >give help me please ?
> >
> >
> >How about the fact that MySQL accepts the following query as legal:
> >
> >SELECT foo, bar, COUNT(*)
> >FROM baz
> >GROUP BY foo
> >
> >And produces, naturally, an unexpected result instead of an
> >error. Totally annoying, I don't know if it was ever fixed. It
> >seems that MySQL's parser is generally weak at syntax validation in
> >it's default configuration.
>
> ** syntax/misc gotchas
>
> Too many. See other emails. Or search for MySQL gotchas.
>
> ** Feature gotchas
> At first look MySQL seems to have all sorts of nice features and
> great performance. BUT, when you start to get to the details, too
> often you'd find that some features aren't so compatible with others
> or take a bit (lot?) more effort to get working properly.
boy, you hit the nail on the head. mysql supports views and
subqueries, but apparently not at the same time. also, complex views
(such as you can write without subqueries) tend to run slower than
identical counterpart in .sql.
mysql supports pl/psm (yay) but unfortunately no FOR loops (yikes).
the mysql planner is an unpredictable thing, producing huge surprises
to the upside and the downside...however taken as a whole it is a
completely inferior planner.
merlin
