On Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 03:33:01PM -0800, Dave Laird wrote: > > Actually, speaking of which, has anyone used 4.x at all? Any initial > > reactions to it compared to 3.x? > > I set it up on one of my internal systems last weekend, and the only > conclusions I have reached, thus far, are thus: > > 1. Without doing any *real* certification or testing, my impression is that it > is faster than the 3.xx version I currently am running in production.
I've heard it's supposed to run faster, but never saw any benchmarks. Faster is better... =) > 2. Having a functional rollover that I can code into applications (that > actually appears to be working) is really nice. Slick... =) > 3. Thus far it is working nicely using a set of normalized 10,000 record > tables. > > Every once in awhile I kick it to see if it still works, but other than that, > after the shambles today, I haven't really had the time to experiment > further. However, I'll post my impressions once I really get my feet wet with > it. Looking forward to seeing it. So the MySQL team considers 4.x stable now? Do they recommend using it over 3.x? -- MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/ "lynx -source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import" {FE6F2AFD : 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
msg64999/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
