On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:52, Vincent Danen wrote: > On Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 03:21:52PM -0400, Adolfo Bello wrote: > > > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:30, Vincent Danen wrote: > > > On Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:15:03PM -0600, jerry wrote: > > > > > You don't need a my.cnf. I don't use one (never have) and have never > > > had a problem because I don't have one. Mind you, MySQL may not be > > > optimized without it, but it isn't necessary for it to run. > > This is true as long as you don't need transactions, rollbacks, commits, > > referencial integrity (in version 4.0.9) and so on. > > > > Without /etc/my.cnf you are restricted to MYISAM and BDB tables. > > True, but last I checked, we haven't touched MySQL 4.x yet so it's a > moot point until we move to 4.x (ie. cooker has 3.23.54a which should > be updated to .55 shortly). > > Actually, speaking of which, has anyone used 4.x at all? Any initial > reactions to it compared to 3.x?
Linux Mag this month has a comparison. And if the article is accurate it really should be a step up. Perhaps as big a step as Apache2 vs 1.3 or better. www.linux-mag.com is the site but I don't know if the e-version has the article... I read it in the dead tree version. James
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
