On Jan 15, 3:35 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > Its amazing when someone states the obvious, how dumb one can feel! > thanks, its always nice to learn a principle well, which i hope i now > have
I'm sorry I didn't put it more gently. Just know that we are all learning and mistakes are expected. If you aren't failing at least occasionally, you aren't trying hard enough. > I dont understand what Mysql is doing, the query produces results but > i am not sure what they represent. i expect mysql thinks that its > being helpful, something that i think i would have preferred it not > to.... is postgresql better in this respect? in terms of sticking to > the SQL standard and not letting one take liberties? if so i would > probably switch over to using it on my next project. My personal opinion is that PostgreSQL is better in almost every way. A few possible exceptions are pure select performance for simple queries, a simple and fast count aggregate function for large datasets (PostgreSQL uses MVCC and needs to scan each row), and built in replication. PostgreSQL built-in replication is coming in 8.5, and is fast enough for almost all MySQL workloads. With PostgreSQL, getting a count for a large number of records is either fast or simple. The simple way is generally slow, but the fast way isn't all that complex. Other than that, I can't think of anything that MySQL does better, and there are a large number of things where I think it does worse. > thanks again, i really appreciate your patience! You're welcome. Jeremy
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk?hl=en.
