RE: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)

2009-02-13 Thread US Data Export
>-Original Message- >From: Martijn Tonies [mailto:m.ton...@upscene.com] >Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:40 PM >To: mysql@lists.mysql.com >Subject: Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence) > >Hi Jerry, > >>>>*Applications should not be log

Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)

2009-02-13 Thread Baron Schwartz
Quoting Martijn Tonies out of context, > A non transactional engine is of near no use. I wouldn't say that ;-) It's of no use for transactional needs, and indeed I rarely say it's a good idea to use a nontransactional engine, but there are very important real-world uses for them. -- MySQL Gene

Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)

2009-02-13 Thread Martijn Tonies
Hi Jerry, *Applications should not be logicaly impaired when the physical storage or access ethods change.* Changing the storage engine for tables, for example from a transactional to non-transactional engine, changes the database logic. [JS] Is that really an example of Codd's rule #8? It

RE: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)

2009-02-13 Thread Jerry Schwartz
>-Original Message- >From: Peter Brawley [mailto:peter.braw...@earthlink.net] >Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 3:02 PM >To: Yusuf Khan >Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com >Subject: Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence) > >>*Applications should not be log

Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)

2009-02-13 Thread Peter Brawley
*Applications should not be logicaly impaired when the physical storage or access ethods change.* Changing the storage engine for tables, for example from a transactional to non-transactional engine, changes the database logic. PB Yusuf Khan wrote: Hello all Does MySQL 5 conform to Codd's