On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you made a field too short for some of the data which comes along
there are two different approaches as to how to handle the situation.
First is to identify the problem and roll back so that nothing even got
started. This is what
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:16:56PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you made a field too short for some of the data which comes along
there are two different approaches as to how to handle the situation.
First is to identify the problem
Josh Tolley wrote:
On 4/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to losing data, I suspect you'd lose a lot more
from PostgreSQL than MySQL on a failing hard drive.
Any particular reason for that suspicion? I ask out of genuine
interest, and I promise I don't want to start a
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:53:46AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:16:56PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you made a field too short for some of the data which comes along
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:17:15AM +0100, Craig Skinner wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:25:38PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
I can second that. I am not a heavy database user by any means - I like
grep far too much for that - but when it can't be avoided, I'd rather
use something with a
On 06 Apr 2006 18:12:59 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com wrote:
Given the cost of programmer time (and the cost of lost data) vs the
cost of a slightly faster processor, is it ever really worth it even
if MySQL is *twice* as fast?
Yes.
Example 1: I feel like digging through
Chris Kuethe wrote:
On 06 Apr 2006 18:12:59 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz
merlyn@stonehenge.com wrote:
Given the cost of programmer time (and the cost of lost data) vs the
cost of a slightly faster processor, is it ever really worth it even
if MySQL is *twice* as fast?
Yes.
Example 1:
At 01:08 PM 4/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to losing data, I suspect you'd lose a lot more
from PostgreSQL than MySQL on a failing hard drive.
And I suspect that if you place WAL files on different disk than the
database, that the opposite is true.
On 4/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to losing data, I suspect you'd lose a lot more
from PostgreSQL than MySQL on a failing hard drive.
Any particular reason for that suspicion? I ask out of genuine
interest, and I promise I don't want to start a flame war.
-Josh
On 4/5/06, David T Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiosity why did your company decide
to go with Postgresql as opposed to mysql?
Just somewhat curious considering you see mysql
everywhere these days...
hi David -
The first half of this post says it very well:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 01:05:43PM -0700, Miles Keaton wrote:
On 4/5/06, David T Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiosity why did your company decide
to go with Postgresql as opposed to mysql?
Just somewhat curious considering you see mysql
everywhere these days...
hi
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:25:38PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
I can second that. I am not a heavy database user by any means - I like
grep far too much for that - but when it can't be avoided, I'd rather
use something with a working foreign key implementation (though that
has apparently
Craig == Craig Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig MySQL is a wee bit faster,
I keep seeing this, but I sometimes see the opposite. That MySQL is faster
meme seems peristent though, as if the PostgreSQL want to provide *some*
justification for people to continue to have a reason for MySQL.
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Craig MySQL is a wee bit faster,
I keep seeing this, but I sometimes see the opposite. That MySQL is faster
meme seems peristent though, as if the PostgreSQL want to provide *some*
justification for people to continue to have a reason for MySQL.
Given the cost of
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
I keep seeing this, but I sometimes see the opposite. That MySQL is faster
meme seems peristent though, as if the PostgreSQL want to provide *some*
justification for people to continue to have a reason for MySQL.
MySQL is perhaps slightly faster by default;
15 matches
Mail list logo
