On 20 October 2010 18:54, Adrian Mageanu <[email protected]> wrote: > And the range of choices regarding storage engines, procedural > languages, data types, and clustering, distribution and replication > scenarios - just to name a few - is much wider with MySQL, regardless of > the platform.
I'm confused by this statement, is this in compare to MSSQL, or in compare to Postgresql? Or In general? I'm definitely sure PG has more choices with regard to procedural languages and datatypes than MySQL, unless there is a way to implement arbitrary stored procedure languages and arbitrary custom data types in MySQL now, which I really would be surprised by. > Myself, I would prefer MySQL to MSSQL if I'd have the choice, because I > wouldn't have to deal with DBCC. Yes, that is a good point. Accessing MSSQL from a non-windows platform is a special sort of hell. I'd preferably not use it at all either, but from a purely stored-procedure/function/triggers perspective, MSSQL's feature set trumps MySQLs. Granted you have to learn a hellish variation of stored procedure language to get this to work. MSSQL's special flavour of SQL is a bit wonky too I'll freely admit. If I was really concerned about CC, I'd probably use a decent ORM that handled all that rubbish for me, and I probably should use those more, just often hand-written queries are easier to do for simple things. The biggest negative in my books for ORMs is multiple clients in different languages, you're forced to make all those clients connect to the ORM instead of the database directly in order to maintain proper consistency, and that is an awful layer of extra effort. -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA nocomil.i...@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canterbury.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
