On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0600, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote: > Andrew, > > I disagree, I wouldn't want to contend with all the complexities > and kludge of Oracle thank you very much. If there was a way to get > PostgreSQL to do better than the current clustering methods, then why not, it > would be a > big win for us.
I'm not saying we _shouldn't_ go after such functionality (I have someone reporting to me at work who is in fact doing so). I'm saying that if you want that functionality today, you can buy it from one place, and that's Oracle. Answers that rely on pretty-good, mostly works, most of the time, if you use the right table handlers always and make sure that nobody inserts dates like '2005-02-30', do not qualify as "a place to buy it from", for the record. And if "pretty close" is a good enough answer for you, you don't need this complex technology at all. You can use async systems in most cases. A PS -- I think MySQL has plenty of good features. It's a fine product, loads better than it was in the old days. But the misfeature of different storage engines, none of which actually achieves all the other features, is an administration mistake waiting to happen. It's what really bothers me about their clustered offering. Others might make a different trade-off. Me, I don't like to be in water over my head when I'm awakened in the middle of the night. -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary and imaginative work need not end up well. --Dennis Ritchie ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match