On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> Why do so many people seem
> to insist on using a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Horses for courses,
> as we join our metaphors around here.
Ad-Hoc queries? :-) With specs that change like water flows I'd have a
very hard time giving up the relational as
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 10:15:33PM -0800, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> "G.W. Haywood" wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > > you can't guarantee your data will be in a consistent state without
> > > transactions or some other way to do atomic updates
> > [snip]
> > > (e.g. you're r
"G.W. Haywood" wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > you can't guarantee your data will be in a consistent state without
> > transactions or some other way to do atomic updates
> [snip]
> > (e.g. you're running a message board and who cares if a post gets
> > lost somewhere) then
Hi there,
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> We're veering WAY off-topic here
Maybe. But I for one am happy for the diversion. A lot of mod-perl
sites are doing just this kind of thing - after all, mod-perl is just
a link in a chain, it's of no use intrinsically without some things
For those of you tired of this thread please excuse me, but
here is MySQL's current position statement on and discussion
about transactions:
Disclaimer: I just helped Monty write this partly in response to
some of the fruitful, to me, discussion on this list. I know
this is not crucial to mod_per
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > For example, it makes it very hard to mix any kind of long running query with
> > OLTP transactions against the same data, since rollback data accumulates very
> > quickly. I would give some appendage for a while to tell Oracle to just use
> > the most
Greg Stark wrote:
> Actually for web sites the lack of transactions is more of a boon than a
> problem.
We're veering WAY off-topic here, but the fact is you can't guarantee
your data will be in a consistent state without transactions or some
other way to do atomic updates. Anything short of tha
Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Depends what the business is. If it is a serious business looking for VC I
> would actually suspect the inverse is true: MySQL is underkill (I think I
> just made that word up) due to its lack of transactions and other advanced
> features (yes, these t
David Harris wrote:
>
> Jeff Warner wrote:
> > We were a mySQL shop. We replaced mySQL with Oracle8i/mod_perl and
> > and Apache::DBI. Works great, once it is all setup. Our overall
> > processing is faster with Oracle too. The lack of transactions and
> > views put an immediate end of
Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Joshua Chamas wrote:
> > BTW, I have also evaled Sybase, Informix, DB2, SQLServer 6.5,
> > Solid, and found Oracle to be the best of all those, but if
> > you don't need transactions, go with MySQL...
>
> Do you mind sharing with me (if not the list)
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Michael wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, John Armstrong wrote:
> > > Hello all-
> > > I just got the word from down high that VC's will freak out
> > > if they see we are using mysql and now we are looking at an Oracle
> > > solution.
> > >
> > > The product is a mid lev
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Michael Peppler wrote:
> You can also use the supported Sybase ASE 11.9.2, which I *believe*
> will cost around $20k for a linux/web licence.
Have sybase given plans for ASE 12 on Linux yet? I'm hoping to get the text
indexing cartridge.
--
Details: FastNet Software Ltd -
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 02:50:52PM -0800, Ian Mahuron wrote:
> Joshua> but if you don't need transactions, go with MySQL...
>
> Or sub-selects.. I can't live without sub-selects!
Sub-selects are high on the to-do list, and the rate that they're
advancing MySQL they'll be available quite soonish.
Hi all,
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:20:21PM -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> Unfortunately, Oracle support is an ongoing criminal enterprise.
> Unless you have the most expensive of all of their support
> contracts, and a former Oracle VP on your staff, you will not get
> any support period. If
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, David Harris wrote:
> This link was just posted to the IMP list a couple min ago:
>
> "Low-Cost Unix Database Differences"
> http://www.toodarkpark.org/computers/dbs.html
>
> Stas, this might be a good link to drop somewhere in the guide.
This is probably getting p
Joshua> but if you don't need transactions, go with MySQL...
Or sub-selects.. I can't live without sub-selects!
John Armstrong wrote:
>
> Hello all-
> I just got the word from down high that VC's will freak out
> if they see we are using mysql and now we are looking at an Oracle
> solution.
>
> The product is a mid level mod perl application that will
> receive ~500,000 hits a day. I want
Not long ago, Jeffrey W. Baker proclaimed...
> Postgres is very slow. In my experience it was never fast enough to
> rise to the scale of the project. Oracle can run really quickly with
> the right tuning and hardware,
Actually, PostgreSQL is also very tuneable. Documentation for PostgreSQL is
Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:20:21PM -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, Oracle support is an ongoing criminal enterprise. Unless
> > you have the most expensive of all of their support contracts, and a
> > former Oracle VP on your staff, you will not get any
Title: RE: oracle : The lowdown
Personally, I hate conversions. I've managed and used Oracle
databases over 4TB with billions of records. The way I figure it, once
I'm up and running on Oracle, I won't worry about the database again.
I'm sure there are a number of other
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:20:21PM -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, Oracle support is an ongoing criminal enterprise. Unless
> you have the most expensive of all of their support contracts, and a
> former Oracle VP on your staff, you will not get any support period. If
> you me
David Harris wrote:
> What about PostgreSQL (www.postgresql.org)? It looks like it has transaction
> management (commit, rollback) with the whole concurrency control thing. I
> don't know if has views. I've got a small project that I am figuring on
> using PostgreSQL for, so I'm curious to hear
John Armstrong wrote:
>
> On this thread, I am seeing a lot of things in the archives hinting
> at issues and problems with Apache::Session ( DBI usage ) and high
> end DB's like Oracle and SyBase.
>
> What sort of success is anyone seeing using Oracle/SyBase with
> Apache::Session. Apache::Sess
Take a look at Frontbase www.frontbase.com From what I can see, it does
everything that Oracle or Sybase can do and is much more reasonable in
price. They're a small company and the support has been excellent.
We've outgrown MySQL and are planning to use Frontbase to replace it.
At 01:08 PM
David Harris wrote:
>
> Jeff Warner wrote:
> > We were a mySQL shop. We replaced mySQL with Oracle8i/mod_perl and
> > and Apache::DBI. Works great, once it is all setup. Our overall
> > processing is faster with Oracle too. The lack of transactions and
> > views put an immediate end of
>From past experiences I'll tell you that PostgreSQL is *dog slow*! We had a
search engine with about 10,000 entries in it that was being run on MySQL,
moved it to PostgreSQL and *bam*.. even with proper indexing & limiting
queries, it took 2-5 seconds to execute a simple query (server was load
On this thread, I am seeing a lot of things in the archives hinting
at issues and problems with Apache::Session ( DBI usage ) and high
end DB's like Oracle and SyBase.
What sort of success is anyone seeing using Oracle/SyBase with
Apache::Session. Apache::Session in a DBI context is crucial to
David Harris wrote:
> What about PostgreSQL (www.postgresql.org)? It looks like it has
transaction
> management (commit, rollback) with the whole concurrency control thing. I
> don't know if has views. I've got a small project that I am figuring on
> using PostgreSQL for, so I'm curious to hear w
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, John Armstrong wrote:
> > Hello all-
> > I just got the word from down high that VC's will freak out
> > if they see we are using mysql and now we are looking at an Oracle
> > solution.
> >
> > The product is a mid level mod perl application that will
> > receive
Jeff Warner wrote:
> We were a mySQL shop. We replaced mySQL with Oracle8i/mod_perl and
> and Apache::DBI. Works great, once it is all setup. Our overall
> processing is faster with Oracle too. The lack of transactions and
> views put an immediate end of mySQL once we got into the detai
Matt Sergeant writes:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, John Armstrong wrote:
> > Hello all-
> >I just got the word from down high that VC's will freak out
> > if they see we are using mysql and now we are looking at an Oracle
> > solution.
> >
> >The product is a mid level mod perl applica
> Hello all-
> I just got the word from down high that VC's will freak out
> if they see we are using mysql and now we are looking at an Oracle
> solution.
(Um, are these VC's in a position to make an informed decision about
which RDBMS to use? What happens when they say "use foo" when fo
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, John Armstrong wrote:
> Hello all-
> I just got the word from down high that VC's will freak out
> if they see we are using mysql and now we are looking at an Oracle
> solution.
>
> The product is a mid level mod perl application that will
> receive ~500,000 hi
Title: Re: oracle : The lowdown
We were a mySQL shop. We replaced mySQL with Oracle8i/mod_perl and
and Apache::DBI. Works great, once it is all setup. Our overall
processing is faster with Oracle too. The lack of transactions and
views put an immediate end of mySQL once we got into the
Hello all-
I just got the word from down high that VC's will freak out
if they see we are using mysql and now we are looking at an Oracle
solution.
The product is a mid level mod perl application that will
receive ~500,000 hits a day. I want to engineer it to withstand up to
2
35 matches
Mail list logo
