Sweet! Sorry about that Jochem, I read the one Chapter (7), but didn't
follow the referenced links. Obviously, I should have.
Thanks,
Matt
~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with F
Matt Quackenbush wrote:
> I just read through Chapter 7 of the PostgreSQL docs (
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/queries.html) regarding queries,
> and could find no examples or mention of a sub-query used in the select
> list.
7.3.1. Select-List Items
The simplest kind of select lis
I just read through Chapter 7 of the PostgreSQL docs (
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/queries.html) regarding queries,
and could find no examples or mention of a sub-query used in the select
list. For example:
SELECT t1.foo, (SELECT COUNT(t2.id) FROM tblTwo t2 WHERE t2.id = t1.id) AS
m
On 1/9/07 6:03 AM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> The only thing I miss in PostgreSQL is eager update-everywhere replication.
> There are commercial offerings for that, but all the community offerings are
> either lazy or master-slave.
I'll second that, I read through the manual and instantly wanted t
On 1/8/07 8:40 PM, Jacob Munson wrote:
> I agree, I think every database has some non-standard SQL. An example in MS
> SQL is the isNull() function, which is functionally equivalent to the ANSI
> standard coalesce(). Why did MS make their own?
Now() vs GetDate(), etc.
--
Damien McKenna - Web D
On 1/8/07 7:29 PM, Matt Quackenbush wrote:
> - non-standard sql
It is different to SQL Server, but that doesn't mean that SQL Server is
standard compliant either. In 8.x they've made many tweaks to make it even
more standards compliant in its syntax, so please have him check his facts.
> - diffi
> Are you aware of anyone who currently runs MS SQL in case
> sensitive mode? I'd be curious to know how often that happens.
Quite a few people do this, in my experience. You can specify different
collations for each database within an instance. Collations determine other
things in addition to ca
Jochem,
I was hoping that you would respond. I've seen a number of your posts
regarding PostgreSQL, and certainly wanted your opinion. :-)
We all know what opinions are like, which is why I didn't want to just take
my friend's opinion as the end-all official truth. Thanks to you all, I
believe
Jon,
Thanks for the clarification.
Matt
On 1/9/07, Jon Clausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:23 AM, Matt Quackenbush wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply. Do you currently run MySQL and/or PostgreSQL on
> > Windows boxes? If so, what version(s) for both the db server and
>
.
>
> -mark
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jordan Michaels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:10 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MSSQL
>
> MS SQL is a fine database, and will get the job done. However, why
-
From: Jacob Munson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 7:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MSSQL
>
> > - non-standard sql
>
> Indeed. This is true in some rare cases (like case sensitivity)
> however, it seems all databases take some liberties
>
> SQL Server also supports COALESCE. And, while the two are very similar,
> they
> aren't identical in functionality. A Google search on "coalesce vs isnull"
> turns up all sorts of mildly interesting stuff.
You're right on both counts, Dave. My main point was that MS even bothered
to make a n
On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:23 AM, Matt Quackenbush wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. Do you currently run MySQL and/or PostgreSQL on
> Windows boxes? If so, what version(s) for both the db server and
> windows
> servers?
Both. 8.2 for Postgres and 5.1 for MySQL.XP Pro and Server 2003
for the OS
> I agree, I think every database has some non-standard SQL.
> An example in MS SQL is the isNull() function, which is
> functionally equivalent to the ANSI standard coalesce(). Why
> did MS make their own? Who knows, maybe because they liked
> their name better?
SQL Server also supports CO
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>> wondering if the users here would care to share their personal + vs. -
>> arguments for PostgreSQL?
>
> + rich SQL support
> + easy to install / configure
> + portable
> + low resource usage
> + excellent documentation
> + great community support
> + many options for co
Matt Quackenbush wrote:
> I've always used MSSQL and quite frankly am quite fond of it - except for
> licensing costs. I've read a few posts here and there where people have
> talked highly of PostgreSQL, so I'm thinking about giving it a shot on a new
> server (windows box). I mentioned this to
Matt Quackenbush wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I forgot to post his specific gripes about it. Here
> is a quick summary:
>
> - non-standard sql
I think that depends on what you call 'standard sql'. To me, standard SQL is
what is defined in ISO/IEC 9075 and few do better then PostgreSQL in tha
Jon,
Thanks for the reply. Do you currently run MySQL and/or PostgreSQL on
Windows boxes? If so, what version(s) for both the db server and windows
servers?
The cost is currently not an issue, although it certainly has the potential
to become one in the relatively near future, at the current da
Matt,
I'll offer my 2 cents:
I use both Pg and MySQL daily now. I used MSSQL for quite a time,
but being a small company, when I started to think about scaleability
and long-term costs I moved all of my projects over to MySQL.
Most of my external projects, however, run Pg, so I spend quite
ROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MSSQL
MS SQL is a fine database, and will get the job done. However, why pay for a
database like that when you can get essentially the same thing for free?
I've got nothing but positive things to say a
>
> > - non-standard sql
>
> Indeed. This is true in some rare cases (like case sensitivity) however,
> it seems all databases take some liberties in regards to this.
I agree, I think every database has some non-standard SQL. An example in MS
SQL is the isNull() function, which is functionally e
Hi Matt,
I've responded to your message in-line below:
Matt Quackenbush wrote:
> Jordan,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I forgot to post his specific gripes about it. Here
> is a quick summary:
>
> - non-standard sql
Indeed. This is true in some rare cases (like case sensitivity) however,
it seem
Jordan,
Thanks for the reply. I forgot to post his specific gripes about it. Here
is a quick summary:
- non-standard sql
- difficult to backup / migrate
- user authenication is weak
- difficult to setup
- difficult to manage
Your post was most informative, for sure. But there's one thing that
MS SQL is a fine database, and will get the job done. However, why pay
for a database like that when you can get essentially the same thing for
free?
I've got nothing but positive things to say about PostgreSQL, and I'd be
very interested to hear what your friend has against it. In my
experience,
Hello,
I've always used MSSQL and quite frankly am quite fond of it - except for
licensing costs. I've read a few posts here and there where people have
talked highly of PostgreSQL, so I'm thinking about giving it a shot on a new
server (windows box). I mentioned this to a buddy of mine who is a
25 matches
Mail list logo
