Re: Opinions on ext3 vs XFS vs reiserfs for LAMP server
sorry but I'm not sure about subquerys I belive mysql now have support of it...
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/subqueries.html
On 8/23/07, Neil Gunton <neil@nilspace.com> wrote:
> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > That is pretty much still true since the replication
> > option on mysql requires using a different backend which looses a bunch
> > of the other mysql features, and is as far as I can tell still rather
> > questionable in use.
>
> Eh? I've been using replication for years now. It works out of the box,
> rock solid, and nothing special on the backend at all. Master produces
> binary log, which is replayed on the slave(s). Nothing "questionable"
> about it, it's used in many large scale installations. Again, more FUD.
>
> > If all you do is store indexed data in some tables, then mysql does
> > great, and is pretty fast at it too. If you have complex relationships
> > and want to do queries that use other query results as filters, then you
> > will find postgres far superior to mysql. Some people think subselects
> > are essential, in which case to them, mysql is just a toy database. If
> > you don't use such features then mysql is great.
>
> You can declare any feature to be "essential" and then denigrate other
> products that don't have it as "toys". Personally I've never missed
> subselects, which, to me, means they are not exactly essential. Of
> course, the riposte to that is to claim that I'm somehow not a "real"
> DBA, or not running a "real" database. Whatever evidence is presented to
> prove that MySQL is a perfectly cabable database manager, the PostgreSQL
> zealots then simply say "Well, that's not a real database application",
> or "Well, maybe it's ok for running a hobby website"... ok, whatever.
> You can't argue with people who have such a religious mindset that no
> amount of evidence or argument can change their viewpoint. From my end,
> I can happily accept that PostgreSQL has some cool features, it's no
> skin off my nose, though most of these features are such that I would
> never have actual cause to use them. Personally, I like to keep the
> database simple, and keep my logic in the application, not in the
> database. Amazingly, the world does not fall down around my ears as a
> result. In any case, MySQL does now support things like subqueries,
> views and stored procedure for those who want them. Transactions have
> been there for a long time now.
>
> Some people like to have business rules and logic embedded in the
> database; other people think it's a terrible idea and stay well away
> from it. As with many things, it's a matter of taste. You can declare
> something to be a toy all you like, but many large installations use
> MySQL for very large-scale, non-trivial tasks. Purists may like
> PostgreSQL, but people who are simply interested in getting the job done
> tend to do just fine with MySQL.
>
> All of this patronizing parroting of the same tired dogma is so
> counter-productive and bitchy... it turns me right off.
>
> /Neil
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
--
Perhaps the depth of
love can be calibrated by the number of different selves that are
actively involved in a given relationship.
Carl Sagan (Contact)
Jaime Ochoa Malagón
Integrated Technology
Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10
Reply to: