On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:33:18 -0400, Peter J Milanese wrote: > Just something I noticed missing here.... > > > The lack of error checking on the server side means better > performance in my opinion.
No doubt. > When you're throwing > a couple thousand hits per second at it, this is visible. I would > have to agree that error checking does belong > on the client side (at least from my experience), and it can be a And what error checking are you referring to? If you are making a general statement then I'll have to disagree with you and thankfully many other tools do as well. Server side checks are preferred over client side checks in many applications. I hope that when you build a web application you don't rely purely on Javascript to validate the data entered on a form. See, speed isn't everything all the time. Sure if you're writing a device driver or something yeah you want pure blazing speed. But when dealing with data? Many are more than willing to give up speed for a bit more security. > lot more productive as a database, and not a > workflow tool. Of course, I do agree about the ENUM and stuff being > annoying, but if you know to work with it, performance is much more > valuable. It boils down to how you intend to use it. This is why at the start I said that yes I plan to use MySQL and I explained where and how. It's just that with the lack of server side checking (Such as records coming in without all the data they should have.) simply means that it's not suitable (ie dangerous) for some purposes. That's all. Most of the other DBMS' that I've worked with include this. MySQL is the first one that I've used that did not. As it was pointed out, they didn't support transactions and so it makes sense that they did as they did. Personally I disagree with that design decision is all. Heh you ever been in a design meeting? Where all the developers get together to discuss how to design/approach some application they're building? Almost never do you see everyone agreeing with everyone else. It's usually not a matter of good design bad design but more a matter of preference. Each has their pros and cons. One of the Pros to the design that MySQL took is performance. They don't have to worry about checking various things. I've already mentioned one of the Cons. IMO I would like to see MySQL have the ability to function similar to say SQLServer in this regard. Make it a toggle. This way if you are using it in a situation where speed is more important to you then you just don't enable server side validation. Well, we'll see how things go. According to some they are already adding features that will make MySQL more flexible so that those who don't need/want the server side checks can happily not have them and those who do can. -- Stormblade (Shaolin Code Warrior) Software Developer (15+ Years Programming exp.) "The worth of your opinion is in direct proportion to the number of people who have asked for it." My System: http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=1683 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
