The point in the whole discussion is not whether to use MySQL for your
projects, but WHEN to choose MySQL for your projects. Running a simple
website is pretty much a MySQL job, but when you are doing some serious
development whereas business processes heavily rely on database data,
data integrity
Wow! Which version did you use last? I really want to hear an
explanation of this one
Cutter
Micha Schopman wrote:
MySQL is out of the question for sensitive information. MySQL is missing
to much functionality to maintain data integrity on db level.
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
I quote, for foreign keys, transactions and triggers. Correct me If I am
wrong but this comes from the MySQL site.
Note that, for the moment, only InnoDB tables support foreign keys.
See section 16.7.4 FOREIGN KEY Constraints
Matt Robertson wrote:
Jochem wrote:
After doing a simple division by 2.20371, your balance doesn't quite
balance anymore.
You mean do the division in the sql?Thats something I would never
do, personally.
Where else can you do it and have control over precision and
rounding? In CF we
there's an idea (i don't want to say generally held but it sometimes seems
so) among folks serious about their databases that mysql isn't quite
right-in-the-head. a few years ago the developers of mysql had this funny
publicly stated attitude about transactions as being a fancy, unnecessary
7. What does zerofill do to a integer field? A database is
meant to store data, not to format it while storing.
Actually I find this to be a nice feature...if necessary.
For instance you are using Auto_Increment INT field and you
are using it as your order number.Maybe you want all of
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 4:03 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?)
Matt Robertson wrote:
Jochem wrote:
After doing a simple division by 2.20371, your balance doesn't
If you're storing lots of sensitive information in a web application,
DON'T RUN IT ON ACCESS!!! Access is a desktop database, threads
frequently crop up on here with lots of info on why it's really NOT
suited to a server environment...
What's a better choice?SQL Server?Does anyone know of
Chris,
MySQL is a good choice as well.Check oput http://www.mysql.com
- Original Message -
From: Chris Kavanagh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:30:57 +0100
Subject: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?)
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're storing lots
What's a better choice?SQL Server?Does anyone know of an idiot's
guide to it I could check out somewhere?
A good entry-level book on SQL server:
Step by Step Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Programming
by Rebecca M. Riordan
Paperback - 685 pages (November 2000)
Microsoft Press
ISBN: 0735611424
The
MySQL is out of the question for sensitive information. MySQL is missing
to much functionality to maintain data integrity on db level.
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 ALAmersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
KvK Amersfoort 39081679, Rabo 39.48.05.380
Really. Like what?
Andrew.
- Original Message -
From: Micha Schopman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:43:16 +0200
Subject: RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?)
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MySQL is out of the question for sensitive information. MySQL
Micha,
Please explain.
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:43:16 +0200, Micha Schopman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MySQL is out of the question for sensitive information. MySQL is missing
to much functionality to maintain data integrity on db level.
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg
I'll second that motion for an explanation.
Quoting Scott Stroz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Micha,
Please explain.
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:43:16 +0200, Micha Schopman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MySQL is out of the question for sensitive information. MySQL is missing
to much functionality to
MySQL is out of the question for sensitive information. MySQL
is missing to much functionality to maintain data integrity
on db level.
Really. Like what?
I don't follow MySQL development too closely, so this may have been
addressed by now, but the versions I looked at didn't ensure
Andy Allan wrote:
I'll second that motion for an explanation.
I'll second that 'motion of distrust':
http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
Jochem
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
Have a look at Cloudscape
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/cloudscape/
It may be overkill but they have an option to encrypt the entire
database- even the schema is not visible.
Dick
On Sep 2, 2004, at 5:30 AM, Chris Kavanagh wrote:
If you're storing lots of sensitive information in a
What's a better choice? SQL Server?
SQL Server is certainly a better choice for a multi-user database. Oracle,
Sybase and other database servers would also be better than Access.
Unfortunately, they also tend to be quite expensive in many cases.
Fortunately, there are cheap and/or free
Sweet. That's what I (and probably others) was after rather than just a Don't
use MySQL.
Don't actually use MySQL myself but this sort of thing is good to know.
Andy
Quoting Jochem van Dieten [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Andy Allan wrote:
I'll second that motion for an explanation.
I'll second
Or the following list, the missing referential integrity still remains
as a MySQL nogo. MySQL is perfect for your average website, but
definitely not for company critical data.
Weird behaviour
1. You can define a varchar/char field 'auto_increment'.
2. SELECT 'A' = 'a' gets you true.
3. Int(10)
How about Firdbird? I've never used it and not with CF, but I have
heard good things about it. Anyone know if it can be used with CF? or
if it is any good.
http://firebird.sourceforge.net/
Andrew.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
http://blog.mxconsulting.com
-Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?)
Or the following list, the missing referential integrity still remains
;-)...but so far
he is 0 for 1.
- Original Message -
From: Mark A Kruger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:49:18 -0500
Subject: RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?)
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Micha,
Ok ok... so it has a few problems (lol).I think you should
And it does automatically change a char(32) to varchar(32), tested on 4.0.20.
that makes it 0 for 2...
Andrew.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
it more efficiently with sql statements.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?)
Some of Micha's points are inaccurate...in some downtime
This listing contains some issues not affecting newer versions, the list
has been created some time ago and is indeed outdated on a few points
but for the overall ... it is MySQL in its current state. But the point
was more or less, MySQL does not contain integrity functionality, and
even if you
-Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?)
Or the following list, the missing referential integrity still remains
as a MySQL nogo. MySQL is perfect for your
Andrew Dixon wrote:
And it does automatically change a char(32) to varchar(32), tested on 4.0.20.
If any column in a table has a variable length, the entire row
becomes variable-length as a result. Therefore, if a table
contains any variable-length columns (VARCHAR, TEXT, or BLOB),
all CHAR
Andrew Dixon wrote:
How about Firdbird? I've never used it and not with CF, but I have
heard good things about it. Anyone know if it can be used with CF? or
if it is any good.
Yes. Yes.
There are quite a few Free Open Source relational databases to
choose from:
- Cloudscape
On Sep 2, 2004, at 11:46 AM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
- SAPdbhttp://www.sapdb.org/
The MySQL folks now own this.
--
Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
Nothing endures but change. - Heraclitus
[Todays Threads]
Message -
From: Micha Schopman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:29:07 +0200
Subject: RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?)
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This listing contains some issues not affecting newer versions, the list
has been created some time ago
Mark A Kruger wrote:
The firestorm has started and you are going to be challenged on most of
these I would wager. Still, your list shows you are no novice.
The list is not Micha's, it is maintained by ACM and many people
contributed in a public process:
I've been following this thread closely, but silently.I've used MySQL rather exclusively in the past couple of years.I agree with Scott that Micha's list seems to be out-dated or not explained well.
I'll address this list - according to MySQL 4.0.2a-NT:
1. You can define a varchar/char field
I've been following this thread closely, but silently.I've
used MySQL rather exclusively in the past couple of years.I
agree with Scott that Micha's list seems to be out-dated or
not explained well.
The biggest criticism that Micha mentioned isn't really enumerated in the
list - the
Peter Farrell wrote:
I agree with Scott that Micha's list seems to be out-dated or not explained well.
Well, I have posted the origins of Micha's list. It is from
March/April 2003. The explanation is a bit coarse indeed if you
can't read the original thread in Dutch.
[4. tablenames
Thanks Dave for you comments.I need to rebut some I said - I incorrectly stated something and I forgot about a setting.
Micha: Tablenames are treated case-sensitive on *nix systems, not on windows.
Check out:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Name_case_sensitivity.html
In MySQL, databases
I use mySQL a lot myself, but I have to say I don't have too many
illusions about it.Sitll that doesn't make it any less useful **in
context**
I think the original question has been forgotten here:What is a good
replacement for Access?Well, we can all agree that anything is the
correct answer
In MySQL, databases correspond to directories within the data directory. Tables within a database correspond to at least one
file within the database directory (and possibly more, depending on the storage engine). Consequently, the case sensitivity of
the underlying operating system determines the
or hire Jochem to figure out how to get PostGres running on your Windows
server :D
Postgres 8.0 is coming, with Win32 Native Support
http://www.postgresql.org/news/216.html
Massimo Foti
http://www.massimocorner.com
[Todays Threads]
Matt Robertson wrote:
I think the original question has been forgotten here:What is a good
replacement for Access?Well, we can all agree that anything is the
correct answer :-).
Next, I submit if you are using Access you are probably not running
mission-control for NASA's next space
Jochem wrote:
After doing a simple division by 2.20371, your balance doesn't quite
balance anymore.
You mean do the division in the sql?Thats something I would never
do, personally.Ionly like to use the db for a container and pretty
much handle all logic outside of it; only storing derived
You mean do the division in the sql?Thats something I would never
do, personally.Ionly like to use the db for a container and pretty
kinda of an expensive way to do things, certainly not getting your money's
worth out of the db.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast
Paul wrote:
kinda of an expensive way to do things, certainly not getting your money's
worth out of the db.
Strictly speaking you're dead on the money.However I wonder how many
of the apps in the lower-end realm we are talking about here would
need or even appreciate the difference unless
Strictly speaking you're dead on the money.However I wonder how many
of the apps in the lower-end realm we are talking about here would
need or even appreciate the difference unless someone benched it, and
then, would anyone notice?Again, I think when you want to start
pretty much all of them
Strictly speaking you're dead on the money. However I wonder how
many of the apps in the lower-end realm we are talking about here
would need or even appreciate the difference unless someone benched
it, and then, would anyone notice? Again, I think when you want to
start optimizing to
45 matches
Mail list logo
