On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 03:45:40PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> That is a (mis)feature of MySQL itself, not of the InnoDB storage engine
> if used in a mixed table type query by MySQL.
Sure, but I think this difference is very far from plain in the
marketing literature promoting MySQL with InnoDB.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/25/2004 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this true?
From a functional point of view, the two appear to do the same thing.
Well, except for one difference. InnoDB will allow you refer to
tables not contr
On 10/25/2004 2:42 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/25/2004 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is this true?
From a functional point of view, the two appear to do the same thing.
Well, except for one difference. InnoDB will allow you ref
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 10/25/2004 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Is this true?
>
> From a functional point of view, the two appear to do the same thing.
Well, except for one difference. InnoDB will allow you refer to
tables not controlled by th
On 10/25/2004 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
Harrison Fisk from MySQL claims in this thread:
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?35,3981,4245#msg-4245
That there are no major differences between InnoDB and MVCC concurrency.
Is this true?
From a functional point of view, the two appear to do
Hello
Harrison Fisk from MySQL claims in this thread:
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?35,3981,4245#msg-4245
That there are no major differences between InnoDB and MVCC concurrency.
Is this true?
Thank you.
Tim
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3:
