paulm at paulm.com
Thu May 8 13:45:42 BST 2008
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Peter Hickman
<peter.hickman at semantico.com> wrote:
> 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.
That's a bit harsh.
All the migrations I've done between RDBMSs have been from MySQL &
Oracle to Pg so I'm more in the Pg camp if push came to shove. That's
offset somewhat however by hearing the endless desperately out-dated
MySQL FUD here.
The Google Ads system runs on MySQL and is probably the largest
deployment of MySQL running anywhere. So when I say I'm certain you
wouldn't run into those problems, I have a reasonable level of
Is that more what you were looking for?
> Peter Hickman.
> Semantico, Lees House, 21-23 Dyke Road, Brighton BN1 3FE
> t: 01273 358223
> f: 01273 723232
> e: peter.hickman at semantico.com
> w: www.semantico.com
More information about the london.pm