daniel,
Monday, November 11, 2002, 3:51:25 AM, you wrote:
d will 4.1 hopefully have stored procedure functionality ?
Nope.
Stored procedures will be implemented around v5.0
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This email is sponsored by Ensita.net
: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: re: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
daniel,
Monday, November 11, 2002, 3:51:25 AM, you wrote:
d will 4.1 hopefully have stored procedure functionality ?
Nope.
Stored procedures will be implemented around v5.0
--
For technical support
,
Greg.
- Original Message -
From: Dan Rossi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Victoria Reznichenko [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
damn , i read it was 4.1 i guess we have to wait a bit then, i wish i
could
program
Message-
From: Greg Matthews [mailto:greg55;ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects and not stored procedures
hey, can i hijack my message back?...this thread is about the performance of
subselects, not stored procedures
Dan Rossi wrote:
damn , i read it was 4.1 i guess we have to wait a bit then, i wish i could
program some c ++ to hurry it along a bit, i dont really have access to DB's
like oracle to learn stored procedure stuff
Don't forget that with MySQL, you can link in external procedures though
...
In the last episode (Nov 11), Greg Matthews said:
hey, can i hijack my message back?...this thread is about the performance of
subselects, not stored procedures. go write your own message :-)...
sothe original question is if someone would be nice enough to answer..
Do any MySql
: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 12:02 AM
Subject: RE: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects and not stored procedures
I'm not sure where you're getting your information (Typically, db vendors
recommend you use an exists clause, not a join when testing for the
presence
of child data because it's faster
11:04 PM
Subject: RE: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
damn , i read it was 4.1 i guess we have to wait a bit then, i wish i
could
program some c ++ to hurry it along a bit, i dont really have access to
DB's
like oracle to learn stored procedure stuff
-Original Message-
From
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 05:51:43PM +1100, Greg Matthews wrote:
It would be a huge help to get hold of MySql 4.1.
What's shaken out mean? Is 4.1 still mid-development, or is it in
alpha, more or less finished, and needs debugging?
Is there anyway soon that someone could build and release
optimised (it will be started after finishing
main subselect constructions).
Regards,
Jocelyn
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Zawodny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greg Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 05:51:43PM +1100, Greg Matthews wrote:
It would be a huge help to get hold of MySql 4.1.
What's shaken out mean? Is 4.1 still mid-development, or is it in
alpha, more
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 09:29:52PM +1100, Greg Matthews wrote:
Jeremy,
I'm not a C/C++ coder so couldn't really help unless a binary was
available.
At the same time, I understand that you'd be wasting your time building
binaries unless you were happy that the code was at a certain level
, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
In article 014701c288a4$1b1bb550$0100a8c0@dev,
Greg Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your call. If a 4.1 binary was available then I'd spend time testing it
with
a J2EE app under JBoss on Windows XP -- otherwise i'll just have to
wait
Greg Matthews wrote:
clause) instead of EXISTS -- seems like a tail wagging the dog strategy.
Isn't EXISTS a lot more efficient than an inner join?
Well, its more efficient if it exists, I guess ... but if it doesn't
exist on your platform (MySQL), then its pretty inefficient, really.
We're
: Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greg Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
Greg Matthews wrote:
clause) instead of EXISTS -- seems like a tail wagging the dog
strategy.
Isn't EXISTS a lot more
consideration of
sometimes putting DISTINCT in the select statement.
Thanks a lot,
Greg.
- Original Message -
From: Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greg Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
Greg
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 03:45:04PM +1100, Greg Matthews wrote:
All,
Anyone have any rough idea when 4.1 (with SubSelects) is due to be released?
Well, if you pull the source code, it's there. But I suspect it'll be
a few months before you start seeing pre-built binaries available.
There's a
state.
Greg.
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Zawodny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greg Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 03:45:04PM +1100, Greg Matthews wrote:
All,
Anyone
18 matches
Mail list logo
