Leif B. Kristensen <leif <at> solumslekt.org> writes: > I've also tried to develop some registration routines for this software > using MySQL, but over time I have come to the conclusion that MySQL is > a bad choice of tool for that kind of job. A RDBMS that silently drops > or truncates a value that doesn't fit in a particular field isn't my > idea of reliability. Simply said; I don't see why I should have to > reinvent the wheel in software to do simple data checking for MySQL, > while other RDBMSes do this perfectly well on their own.
4.1 (current production version) actually gives a warning on such occasions, and in 5.0 you can set a mode which forces an error. I'd suggest that this does exactly what you want. > That's just only one of the issues I've got with MySQL. There are others > as well, but suffice it for now to say that I consider it simplistic, > as RDBMSes go. At work, I'm using Oracle and DB2. And in my private > life, PostgreSQL is a recent and delightful encounter. All RDBMS, traditional and open source, incorporate certain design decisions, shortcuts, and dialects. As I understand, Oracle can also truncate strings on input. Oracle also regards "" and NULL to be the same, which breaks Codd's rule#3 (Systematic treatment of NULL values). It's just an example, but I hope you see what I mean. Noone (well except Fabian Pascal, perhaps ;-) regards Oracle as less capable. The reason is that people are used to it, so they accept these things. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. Of course, we appreciate that different users have different needs, and that's exactly why the additional features in 4.1 and 5.0 have been introduced. Now you can choose exactly what you want. From very loose to very strict and some in between. > > People and companies choose their database based on needs as well as > > preference. Many companies use multiple different RDBMS (traditional > > as well as opensource) for exactly that reason. > > So do I. And I've already mentioned my own MySQL web application; I > don't see any reason whatsoever to quit using MySQL there. If you want > to serve up thousands of Selects in a few seconds, MySQL is a perfect > choice. But it's not the perfect tool for everything. I completely agree, there is no universal screwdriver. However, MySQL is also quite suitable for heavy read/write and other environments, and I do think that that message is important. (we are, however, digressing a bit from the topic of this thread!) > > I'm sure you can promote PostgreSQL perfectly well without saying > > anything negative about MySQL or any other product. Say something > > positive, and promote the software of your choice on its own merit. > > Then let people make their own choice. Isn't that the way it should > > be? > > I don't think that you read my original posting at all. You just saw > something that might be construed as criticism of MySQL. I read. The thread issue was, and is, just pertaining to MySQL. Right? So no other RDBMS or aspect needed to be discussed in this thread. Och. Let's leave it there. > As you mentioned religion in your first paragraph: If I were a Community > Relations Manager, I'd be more worried about all the database novices > advocating MySQL all over the Internet like it's the Second Coming. I am, in a positive way, concerned about (and with) many things. And sure, the issue you note here is also important. People will have their personal preferences, which are of course subjective. Someone's preference should never be construed as an objective analysis. And like we also agreed, there is no universal screwdriver. However, there is a lot of overlap and users who need a range of functionality therefore still have plenty of choice. And I think that is a good thing. Regards, Arjen. Community Relations Manager MySQL AB -- [email protected] mailing list
