>The problem here is I believe we are using a different definition of
>quality. For me, something is "good" as long as it does what I want it to
>do.
Ok, I understand what your arguments boils down to now (but my definition
is actually exactly the same as yours.... ;). Let me refine my self:
I did compare MySQL towards other RDBMS-engines and the general
functionality
you may suspect to find within them, not towards a specific application. In
this respect, MySQL are more worse than I first believed.
But on the other hand, if we should compare "goodness" towards application,
Yes, then I do agree with you, that for some applications MySQL might not
only be a good solution, but even the best choice!
But for my considerations, after I read that article. MySQL is definitely
out
of question for potential DBMS - I been suspecting this before, but for
other
reasons. The article I read just made the final touch to convince me in
my intuitive conclusions about MySQL's performance.
>I have no current need for stored processes or transactions, so I
>wouldn't really care if it had it or not.
Hmm... I could fill a book as an argument against such attitude. :)
But... no time today. :)
Regards,
Anders - who has to concentrate more on the rewriting of a database
loader now....
--
PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
