Oh wait, let me add the wonderful CONNECT BY statement. The ability to force a table to stay in memory. The ability to fine tune your database to maximize performance.
Don't diss a product just because you don't need the features. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:04 pm Subject: Re: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise > Hmm. Well, I could use the different indexing methods that Oracle > has, it's better implemented transactional support, cursors that > don't suck, and the ability to use a language (PL-SQL/Java) that > actually works like a real language, unlike the suckage that is T- > SQL.. > Oh, let's not forget packages. Having SPs organized? Who'd have > thunk it? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roberson, Jeff, Mr (Contractor) ACI" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 > 12:01 pm > Subject: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise > > > I currently develop in MYSQL, MSSQL, and ORACLE. > > > > My choice by far is MYSQL because 90% of my work involves data > > from other > > systems that gets imported and I display on WebPages - or > generate > > reports.In using MYSQL for 2 years on several projects I have > had > > no issues at all. > > > > My Second Choice would be MSSQL (even though it doesn't run on > > LINUX :( ) in > > 7 years I have had one major issue and that was because I > > corrupted the RAID > > :) oops! > > > > I WOULD NEVER recommend ORACLE. It is was too overpriced if you > > need the > > features go with MSSQL. > > It runs horribly with CF. TOAD is a nightmare and things just > > don't seem to > > work. Although 9i supporting ANSI SQL has made it a little less > > hated in my > > book. > > > > Just my opinion. > > > > Jeff Roberson > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 1:48 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: WOT: MySQL in the Enterprise > > > > > > Jon wrote: > > > for 99% of what I do, mysql handles my needs perfectly. > > > 'Course, I'm doing mostly insert, delete, update, select... > > > nothing too complicated. I'll be very happy when the next > > >version comes out that can do subqueries, though. > > > > My sentiments exactly. I can't wait for subqueries. And > despite the > > to-do list on their site that's been pointed out with regard to low > > priority for stored procedures, that's out of date. They > acknowledge> somewhere in that cavernous site that stored procs > are the #1 most > > requested feature and are slated for v4.1. I personally don't > use 'em > > as most of what I write needs to work on anything, so no stored > > procs = > > no big deal. > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
