Could very well be, but at the time we were evaluating, they were in beta and that wasn't an option. Since I haven't had to do any projects with MySQL, lately, I haven't kept up. As such, I should have said that at the time we evaluated it, it didn't meet our needs. Thanks for the update.
Joe On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:03:39 +0100 Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > »Joseph Braddock« sagte am 2002-02-20 um 19:16:20 -0600 : > > I'd have to concur with Rob. Postgres seems to be a very feature rich and stable >database. We are looking to moving some of our Oracle databases to it. MySQL seems >to get much more press, but it simply lacks many features required for serious >database use (stored procedures, transactions, sub-selects, etc). This is not >intended to start a Postgres vs MySQL war (as both have zealots). MySQL is very good >at the things it does. But because of it's limitations, it doesn't fit our specific >needs. > > > > Well, MySQL *has* transactions and stored procedures (not as good as > Oracles, though). And I think sub-selects are also available in 4.x, > no? > > > Alexander Skwar > -- > How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) > Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > iso-top.de - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen > Uptime: 4 hours 47 minutes > >
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
