Here are some apparent problems with MySQL 5.0:
- Concurrent ALTER TABLE
- Replicated Session Variables and Concurrent ALTER
TABLE
- BIT indexing that [doesn't] actually uses a BIT!
- SELECT * FROM FOO WHERE ID IN ( SELECT FOO_ID FROM
BAR ) [doesn't use index]
Very much a description of the Business I am in.
For all the criticism leveled at it, I still think that as a rich
Database Client that permits really rapid development of Database driven
applications Access is unbeatable. Pair it with a good Database server
and it is the perfect combination.
Someone trying to stick microsoft yet another place
they don't belong.
--- Johan Wehtje [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very much a description of the Business I am in.
For all the criticism leveled at it, I still think
that as a rich
Database Client that permits really rapid
development of
I doubt you read the rest of the post otherwise I don't think you would
make that comment.
I think there really is a need for a rich DB client that allows Rapid
development and is easy to link to an office Suite. To be useful to a
business a database needs the applications built on top of it,
Johan Wehtje wrote:
I doubt you read the rest of the post otherwise I don't think you
would make that comment.
Personlly I think you were right. Access is a good front end, at least
in the sense that it is a hell of a lot better
than anything the OSS community has bothered to come up with. I
On Oct 13, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Alex Turner wrote:
snip
Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting
and
stopping the database remotely.
I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have OpenSSH
snip
I'm just curious, but how does this work for a
This thread should continue under the proper title
since it's been hi-jacked .
I didn't read your entire post. If you know how to
join a pk and fk it's not difficult to build an
effective diagram on paper and reuse the same schema
for other applications.
I think there really is a need for a
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:32, Chris Travers wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
Strict Mode and Error handling: Not an option, but always on in
PostgreSQL. There are still plenty of things that fall through the
cracks on MySQL, like my previously mentioned problem with column level
constraints
Actualy to me, it seems like postgres is a perfect partner for MS
Access. Throw out Jet, and use Pgsql. It's infinately
better than Jet, so operating in a Win98 environment seems reasonable
in this scenario.
I swear you could build a business just building MS Access apps on a
Postgresql databases
snipInstance Manager:Uniquely MySQL.It allows things like starting and
stopping the database remotely.I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have OpenSSHsnip
I'm just curious, but how does this work for a windows box?
Federated Storage Engine:Allows MySQL to access tables in
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:00:03PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
snip
Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting
and stopping the database remotely.
I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have
OpenSSH snip
I'm just curious, but how does this
Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 13:00 -0400 schrieb Alex Turner:
...
If I had just one wish for postgresql it would be to support
cross-database queries like Oracle. This is a HUGE pain in the ass,
and DBI-Link syntax is clunky as hell.
I would switch to Oracle tomorrow
I could, but it would breach the terms of our contract. Our
contract with the data providers clearly specifies seperate databases
;), so I'm kind of tied down by the legalese.
I have certainly considered just putting them in schemas, but I talked to legal and they didn't really like that idea ;).
If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle lets you
treat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using oracle breach
your contract then? In this case, PostgreSQL's schemas and Oracle's
separate databases are functionally identical, nomenclature aside.
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at
Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;)
AlexOn 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle lets youtreat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using oracle breachyour contract then?In this case,
I wouldn't be so sure of that. IT might be that in order to be
considered to be complying with the contract you have to setup oracle in
such a way as to disable any database to database access / joining.
Seems to me the second you can run a query that hits both databases you
might well be in
heh... anythings possible ;) I guess we are okay for now then seeing that we are using postgresql with no dblinkg ;)
AlexOn 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure of that.IT might be that in order to beconsidered to be complying with the contract you have to setup
Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 15:44 -0400 schrieb Alex Turner:
Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;)
Alex
On 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle
lets you
...
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:20:47AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
project. I hope their employers appreciate what they've got.
Well, I can tell you that Afilias does.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'll take one Tom Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql
hackers go here) over 1,000 MySQL hackers.
... I hope their employers appreciate what they've got.
Is there a good way of telling their
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:37, CSN wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
snip
Instance Manager:
Alex Turner wrote:
Support for windows 98 was infact extended to June 2006:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean1
Right
And it was extended again last year as it was supposed to extend this
last June, and Last June, etc. We will see if it is not extended again
But if you are
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 17:42, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread thought
I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are of a delicate
dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked them straight up why I
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'll take one Tom Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql
hackers go here) over 1,000 MySQL hackers.
Likewise. They probably don't hear it enough, so I hope they're
aware that some of us have a great deal of respect for both
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Actually, the same could be said of Samba and Apache. I'll take one Tom
Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql hackers go here) over
1,000 MySQL hackers.
I wonder what kind of result we would get if we compared something
On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote:
They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
collation per database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
togather
On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote:
They have collation and multiple characterset per
table and etc. which actually is from 4.1 (not new in
5.0), and postgresql have only one collation per
database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there,
but cannot be used
On Oct 8, 2005, at 2:04 PM, CSN wrote:
AFAIK MySQL's fulltext indexing is only supported on
MyIsam tables, so if you want to use it, you lose
ACID,
For me, the fact that to use a feature means one needs to give up
ACIDity ends any debate on which DB to choose, and I'm not even a power
Scott Marlowe wrote:
It's just where they're defined. See this bug for an explanation:
And a table-level foreign-key can involve more than one column of course.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think.
But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don't
care much about your data :)
My goal is to allow my application demo, trial and development versions to
run in every Windows.
If
1.pgAdmin refuses to run in Windows 98, displays that it is compiled with
unicode support.
Where to find binary version of pgAdmin for Windows 98 ?
You could try PG Lightning Admin, it should work in windows 98.
I don't have access to a win98 box to really test, but it *should* work.
--
Andrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apache runs well in Windows 98. Why this is so difficult in native Windows
Postgres?
I *think* it's because we use certain features of NTFS, which Win98
will never support.
-Doug
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2:
Tony Caduto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1.pgAdmin refuses to run in Windows 98, displays that it is compiled with
unicode support.
Where to find binary version of pgAdmin for Windows 98 ?
You could try PG Lightning Admin, it should work in windows 98.
I don't
Douglas McNaught [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apache runs well in Windows 98. Why this is so difficult in native
Windows
Postgres?
I *think* it's because we use certain features of NTFS, which Win98
will never support.
On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:31, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:35:38PM -0700, CSN wrote:
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql
On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote:
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think.
But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don't
care much about your data :)
My goal is to allow my application demo, trial and
On Thursday 06 October 2005 18:18, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:40:49PM -0700, CSN wrote:
--- Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
tables in other
servers like they are here. No real direct
equivalent in
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:45:06AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:31, Michael Fuhr wrote:
Also, notice the TYPE innodb clause of the CREATE TABLE
statement. The default table type in MySQL is MyISAM, which
doesn't support foreign key contraints at all, but
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote:
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think.
But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don't
care much
Andrus wrote:
I must support demo versions for 1 to 100 users in all Windowses using free
software.
So there are the following options :
1. Use Firebird
2. Use Postgres + cygwin all cases, even in XP
3. Use Postgres native for XP, Postgres+cygwin in Win 98
4. Use Postgres native for XP,
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 07:00:27PM +0300, Andrus wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote:
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98 You can run PostgreSQL on
Cygwin on Win98, I think. But ifyou're running
Am Freitag, den 07.10.2005, 19:00 +0300 schrieb Andrus:
...
I must support demo versions for 1 to 100 users in all Windowses using free
software.
So there are the following options :
1. Use Firebird
2. Use Postgres + cygwin all cases, even in XP
3. Use Postgres native for XP,
IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick,
Cloudscape) None of those take-
overs has led to a product actually surviving.
Thats not exactly true - Cloudscape was just given to Apache, and is now
opensourced under the name Derby
http://db.apache.org/derby/
But no, Mark, I'm not worried by the FUD. It just means there's nothing
real for them to throw at PostgreSQL.
This just appeared on slashdot...
MySQL To Be Ikea Of The Database Market
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/07/1224213from=rss
From the linked article...
Simon Riggs wrote:
IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick,
Cloudscape) and Oracle have previously bought DEC RDB, so both have
track record of successful competitor take-overs. None of those take-
overs has led to a product actually surviving.
Informix to some
On 10/7/05, Philip Hallstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But no, Mark, I'm not worried by the FUD. It just means there's nothing
real for them to throw at PostgreSQL.
This just appeared on slashdot...
MySQL To Be Ikea Of The Database Market
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 13:32 -0500, Dan Armbrust wrote:
IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick,
Cloudscape) None of those take-
overs has led to a product actually surviving.
Thats not exactly true - Cloudscape was just given to Apache, and is now
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
- All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL
support
services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB.
Damn, guess I need to update my resume...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering
More generally, it's worth making the point that a lot of MySQL's brand
new in 5.0 features have been in Postgres for a *long* time, and are
therefore likely to be both more stable and better-performing than
MySQL's first cut at them.
Some specific things could be: Their initial support for
I'm not sure what XA (distributed transactions) is -
is that something that can be achieved with Slony?
CSN
--- Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any
new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?
I'm not sure what XA (distributed transactions) is -
is that something that can be achieved with Slony?
CSN
--- Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CSN) writes:
I'm not sure what XA (distributed transactions) is -
is that something that can be achieved with Slony?
No.
XA is an interface to allow having updates take place across multiple
databases.
That would mean that you do some updates on one DB, others on another,
They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
collation per database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
togather most of them (you can have foreign key, but
They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
collation per database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
togather most of them (you can have foreign key,
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:37, CSN wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
Bit type: Postgresql supports binary string
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:50:47PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
More generally, it's worth making the point that a lot of MySQL's brand
new in 5.0 features have been in Postgres for a *long* time, and are
therefore likely to be both more stable and better-performing than
MySQL's first cut
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
fk references made at a table level, it simply ignores, without error,
warning, or
Now this is rather useful in my opinion. I will be passing it on to some
of my collegues.
Aly.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
There is a LOT of customers running Windows 98 .
So
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
fk references made at a table
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new comparable
features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in PostgreSQL up to the
forthcoming
8.1? AFAIK, PG just lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
There is a LOT of customers running Windows
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 21:40 +0300, Andrus wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
Andrus wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
There is a LOT of customers
Support for windows 98 was infact extended to June 2006:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean1
AlexOn 10/6/05, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 21:40 +0300, Andrus wrote: Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that
--- Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
tables in other
servers like they are here. No real direct
equivalent in PostgreSQL,
but dblink provides similar functionality.
Would that be possible with table partitions? Or
Slony?
CSN
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
fk references made at a table level, it simply ignores, without error,
warning, or
--- Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there
any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:35:38PM -0700, CSN wrote:
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
fk references made at a table level, it simply
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:40 -0700, CSN wrote:
--- Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
tables in other
servers like they are here. No real direct
equivalent in PostgreSQL,
but dblink provides similar functionality.
Would that be
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:30:26AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Information Schema: MySQL's support of this looks fairly extensive.
But PostgreSQL's is pretty good, too, last I looked.
Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting and
stopping the database remotely.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:40:49PM -0700, CSN wrote:
--- Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
tables in other
servers like they are here. No real direct
equivalent in PostgreSQL,
but dblink provides similar functionality.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and probably won't.
Hi everyone,
I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread thought
I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are of a delicate
dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked them straight up why I
should use MySQL instead of PostgreSQL and was quite
I had a similar experience speaking to the MySQL folks
at (the last) COMDEX. After trying to get them to
explain how their licenses work, I was even more
confused (and two reps even gave conflicting info).
CSN
Hi everyone,
I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and
seeing this thread
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread
thought I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are
of a delicate dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked
them
- All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL
support
services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB.
Oh the irony
Command Prompt, Inc...
Doing PostgreSQL since 1997.
Profitable since 1997.
No debt since 1997.
Oh... and of course, no
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL
support services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB.
Oh the irony
Actually, AFAIR the *only* such company that's gone under was Great
Bridge; and in their case it wasn't
So, yeah, the above claim is just FUD. It'd be interesting to ask some
hard questions about exactly how solid MySQL AB's finances are ... and
how many other support options users will have if they go under.
Well I can say that Command Prompt will support their migration to
PostgreSQL fully
On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
(...)
Are you aware of the MySQL Gotchas website (just google it)? Any time
you see MySQL being stupid about something you
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
MySQL 5.0 new features
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mysql-5-0-nutshell.html
Thanks,
CSN
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
MySQL 5.0 new features
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
83 matches
Mail list logo
