peter.hickman at semantico.com
Thu May 8 13:20:58 BST 2008
Paul Makepeace wrote:
> Not that a good yarn isn't appreciated, but... Saying "MySQL 3.1
> couldn't handle my incredibly complex queries" is rather like saying
> "I switched from MS-DOS to Unix as the command line tool weren't up to
> what I needed" -- a historic anecdote, and a somewhat self-evident one
> at that. It doesn't really add anything to a modern "Which RDBMS?"
> discussion. (Maybe you didn't intend it to; just sayin').
> MySQL 5.1 is great product and I'm quite certain these days you
> wouldn't run into the problems you've talked about.
I would rate your "I'm quite certain these days you wouldn't run into
the problems you've talked about" to be of even less value that a
"historic anecdote". At least he was telling us what actually happened,
your contribution is pure fantasy and the DOS to Unix analogy doesn't
hold well either. An SQL query is an SQL query wherever it is run and
thus we can compare database engines.
Unless you have proof that 5.1 no longer exhibits the problems that he
described then I will just assume you are a proMySQL / anti PG fanboy.
Opinions / Assholes. You know the drill.
Semantico, Lees House, 21-23 Dyke Road, Brighton BN1 3FE
t: 01273 358223
f: 01273 723232
e: peter.hickman at semantico.com
More information about the london.pm