sorry but I'm not sure about subquerys I belive mysql now have support of it...
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/subqueries.html On 8/23/07, Neil Gunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > That is pretty much still true since the replication > > option on mysql requires using a different backend which looses a bunch > > of the other mysql features, and is as far as I can tell still rather > > questionable in use. > > Eh? I've been using replication for years now. It works out of the box, > rock solid, and nothing special on the backend at all. Master produces > binary log, which is replayed on the slave(s). Nothing "questionable" > about it, it's used in many large scale installations. Again, more FUD. > > > If all you do is store indexed data in some tables, then mysql does > > great, and is pretty fast at it too. If you have complex relationships > > and want to do queries that use other query results as filters, then you > > will find postgres far superior to mysql. Some people think subselects > > are essential, in which case to them, mysql is just a toy database. If > > you don't use such features then mysql is great. > > You can declare any feature to be "essential" and then denigrate other > products that don't have it as "toys". Personally I've never missed > subselects, which, to me, means they are not exactly essential. Of > course, the riposte to that is to claim that I'm somehow not a "real" > DBA, or not running a "real" database. Whatever evidence is presented to > prove that MySQL is a perfectly cabable database manager, the PostgreSQL > zealots then simply say "Well, that's not a real database application", > or "Well, maybe it's ok for running a hobby website"... ok, whatever. > You can't argue with people who have such a religious mindset that no > amount of evidence or argument can change their viewpoint. From my end, > I can happily accept that PostgreSQL has some cool features, it's no > skin off my nose, though most of these features are such that I would > never have actual cause to use them. Personally, I like to keep the > database simple, and keep my logic in the application, not in the > database. Amazingly, the world does not fall down around my ears as a > result. In any case, MySQL does now support things like subqueries, > views and stored procedure for those who want them. Transactions have > been there for a long time now. > > Some people like to have business rules and logic embedded in the > database; other people think it's a terrible idea and stay well away > from it. As with many things, it's a matter of taste. You can declare > something to be a toy all you like, but many large installations use > MySQL for very large-scale, non-trivial tasks. Purists may like > PostgreSQL, but people who are simply interested in getting the job done > tend to do just fine with MySQL. > > All of this patronizing parroting of the same tired dogma is so > counter-productive and bitchy... it turns me right off. > > /Neil > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Perhaps the depth of love can be calibrated by the number of different selves that are actively involved in a given relationship. Carl Sagan (Contact) Jaime Ochoa Malagón Integrated Technology Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10
