Re: postgresql vs mysql

Hello,

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:16:24 +0800
Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> wrote:

> Want transactions? Use innoDB. Want to restore a multi-gigabyte
> database fast from backups, sure use MyISAM (too many people seem to
> have probs doing that with innoDB).

sure you want to do this?

http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=11151

I won't trust a database who prefers speed over data integrity even if
it's named "transaction".

> Want foreign keys to work? Use innoDB. MyISAM tables allow you to
> specify foreign keys but ignores AND forgets them.

As example, you have to say

FOREIGN KEY ... REFERENCES

cause REFERENCES itself is (was?) even in innodb just syntax sugar and
get's ignored. Standard tells, REFERENCES as an alias for the full
syntax is just fine, but in Mysql you won't even get an error.

> You can mix MyISAM tables with innoDB tables in the same database.
> That's a minus.

Thats a feature.

You can even mix both table types in a transaction: thats a real bug.

> ** D'oh level release gotchas
> Example: Before MySQL 5.0.13, GREATEST(x,NULL) and
> LEAST(x,NULL) return x when x is a non-NULL value. As of 5.0.13,
> both functions return NULL if any argument is NULL, the same as
> Oracle. This change can cause problems for applications that rely
> on the old behavior.

Between 5.0.24a and 5.0.27 the behaviour of SELECT COUNT(1) has changed
and now returns 1 as expected. Previous versions returned 0 but of
course behaviour changes in minor releases and no announcement was
made. This one seems easy on the first look but i was told that it is
only a result of a bigger change somewhere else in the code which
will or will not interfere with other results as well.

> Not saying Postgresql is perfect - rather that MySQL makes Postgresql
> look really good.

Hehe, sure ;-)

Kind regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
(Ferenc Mantfeld)