On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:11:54 -0500 "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not aware of any generally accepted definitions of generations > > of > > database management systems. > > Nor am I, but I'd say MySQL would be at least 2 if not 3 or 4 > generations behind PostgreSQL if there was such a thing :). PostgreSQL > would also be a generation or two behind Oracle.
Bzzzt! Do you work in Oracle's marketing department? PostgreSQL is not a generation behind Oracle by any reasonable definition. We may lack some features that they have but they lack some features we have. You need to do some constructive defining to put one ahead of the other. The only "generation" differentiation I have ever heard about in general use was based on the language used to talk to the database. In that sense PostgreSQL is 3GL (SQL) and plpgsql might be 4GL. Progress is a 4GL. I'm not sure that's a feature though. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
