Peter Schoenster wrote:
> On 1 Feb 99, at 15:43, Jack Killpatrick wrote:
>
> > Before I decide to completely dump the SQL Server plan in favor
> of MySQL,
> > I need to gain more confidence in the dependability of MySQL in a busy
> > environment. According to mysql.com docs, they have a db of
> 50mil records
> > running and MySQL is *made* for handling large databases. Also,
> according
> > to their docs, they have not have a single incident of lost data due to
> > table corruption, other than when the db admin person does
> something they
> > shouldn't have done. Those are some fairly strong claims.
>
> Is atomicity important? You may want to check ou these forums:
>
> http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=web/db
> A lot of good discussions from people who are doing it, albeit all a
> little differently.
Thanks for the link, Peter. Atomicity is not something I need right now,
*but* I'll have to do some hard thinking about whether I think I'll need
transactions in the future before going full bore with MySQL. Thanks for the
reminder.
BTW, I don't agree with Greenspan's comment:
"Actually, support for atomic transactions is the whole point of installing
a relational database. If you don't need transactions, then you probably
don't need a database management system at all."
I guess the word "probably" is relevant...no way I'd want to take my 87
related tables and convert them to text file IO.
Jack
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
Give the Gift of Life This Year...
Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
---------------------------------------------------------------------
