> I've read about MySQL in linux journal & on the MySQL website,
> and its benchmarks are great, and it sounded better than
PostGresSQL,
> UNTIL I saw "MySQL does not support transactions".
>
> IMHO if it does not support transactions, it is NOT a database.
Say it loud! Say it proud!
I've heard someone say that this lack of transactions "verges on
criminal negligence". :)
Anyway, yes, this is a MAJOR drawback of MySQL. That and the lack
of stored procedures, views, subqueries etc.
To hack around the transactions problem, just get a lock on the
table while you're doing the dirty work - disgusting little hack, I
know. But it works for the small stuff.
You could go with PostgreSQL, but then it's just slightly slow
(anyone willing to come up with a creative exaggeration is quite
welcome).
http://www.mysql.org/Manual_chapter/manual_TODO.html
They understand our pain however, so it's all coming. I heard a
whisper that the Zend engine (behind the soon to be really released
PHP4) will be used in MySQL for all these features... That would be
very nice. I don't remember where I found that, an interview? The
Zend site has gone all Transmeta on us, so there's nothing to see
there. Anyone remember where this news was? Was it indeed MySQL and
not PostgreSQL?
- Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: rsn
i: 16341281 (jdub!)
q: "A rest with a fermata is the moral opposite of the fast
food restaurant with express lane."
- James Gleick, Faster
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
