From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? |
Date: | 2005-10-06 17:21:10 |
Message-ID: | 20051006172110.GD36108@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
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 at them.
> >
> >
> Some specific things could be: Their "initial support" for triggers ;)
> Also technically we
> do have updateable views via rules.
Actually, is that even a 'technically'? If memory serves, both Oracle
and DB2 have ways to handle updates on views that are not automatically
updateable. What we're missing are *automatically* updateable views.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-06 17:23:24 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-10-06 16:57:09 | Re: Release, 3rd draft |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-06 17:23:24 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-06 16:20:02 | Re: Indexen on 8.0.3 |