Re: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects and not stored procedures

2002-11-11 Thread John Ragan
iginal 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

Re: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects and not stored procedures

2002-11-11 Thread Greg Matthews
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 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,

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects and not stored procedures

2002-11-11 Thread Dan Nelson
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

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-11 Thread Michael T. Babcock
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 ... i

RE: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects and not stored procedures

2002-11-11 Thread Arthur Fuller
0:0:02 Arthur -Original 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 perform

Re: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects and not stored procedures

2002-11-11 Thread Greg Matthews
aid is null Thanks, 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

RE: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-11 Thread Dan Rossi
Sent: 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 t

re: RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-11 Thread Victoria Reznichenko
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 http:

RE: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-10 Thread daniel
<[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

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-10 Thread Greg Matthews
-- 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 Matthews wrote: > > >clause) in

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-10 Thread Michael T. Babcock
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'r

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-10 Thread Greg Matthews
d Fuchs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 11:16 PM Subject: Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects > In article <014701c288a4$1b1bb550$0100a8c0@dev>, > "Greg Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Your call.

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-10 Thread Jeremy Zawodny
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 l

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-10 Thread Greg Matthews
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Greg Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[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

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-10 Thread Jocelyn Fournier
t yet 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 1

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-10 Thread Jeremy Zawodny
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

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-09 Thread Greg Matthews
is in a semi-usable 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 >

Re: MySql 4.1 Sub Selects

2002-11-09 Thread Jeremy Zawodny
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