> No kidding? Why don't you fork the PostGreSQL codebase and apply your
> special assembly talents to speed it up by "50% or even 60%"?
If you're willing to pay for quality, Oracle is an obvious choice.
It's fast, it has all the features, there are numerous advanced tools to
manage and develop y
DownloadFAST.com wrote:
>> [...] why don't you try PostgreSQL instead?
> My understanding is it is much slower.
No kidding? Why don't you fork the PostGreSQL codebase and apply your
special assembly talents to speed it up by "50% or even 60%"?
---
On Friday 09 Nov 2001 12:08, you wrote:
MySQL
> On Friday 09 Nov 2001 11:37, you wrote:
> > Note on what is going on here...
> >
> > The paragraph below was from a private email I sent to Gordon. And now
> > Gordon just responded to it on the public list.
> >
> > Gordon, I was strongly hinting to
On Friday 09 Nov 2001 12:11, DownloadFAST.com wrote:
> >Considering the features you want (IIRC you only mentioned the
> >default values in tables) - why don't you try PostgreSQL instead?
>
> My understanding is it is much slower.
That is what I am hoping for. Or rather, I am hoping that MySQL pr
>Considering the features you want (IIRC you only mentioned the
>default values in tables) - why don't you try PostgreSQL instead?
My understanding is it is much slower.
>There are at least 5 free open source SQL DBMSes (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SAP,
>Interbase, MiniSQL). Before you hopelessly sta
On Friday 09 Nov 2001 03:36, DownloadFAST.com wrote:
> Mr. Bobic,
[snip]
> The only thing that matters is that every time you respond on the list, you
> are only making a fool of yourself in the eyes of the many people who are
> lurking. They can see right thru your motives in sending this post
I just got back in from a nice day in the park with my kids and my parents.
All I can say to defend myself is that I'm sorry I did not bow to you thy King.
And I am sorry if I have my own opinions and personality. I will try to
conform asap to Big Brother's wishes.
And I am sorry that my apol
