On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 02:24:11PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Cool. Does it still error out after issueing:
>
> set sql_mode='MYSQL323';
>
> ???
>
> Just wondering if bounds checking is still optional but is now op-out
> instead of opt-in, or if it's something that you can no longer turn off
NERAL] PostgreSQL vs mySQL, any performance difference
for
Cool. Does it still error out after issueing:
set sql_mode='MYSQL323';
???
Just wondering if bounds checking is still optional but is now op-out
instead of opt-in, or if it's something that you can no longer turn off.
Cool. Does it still error out after issueing:
set sql_mode='MYSQL323';
???
Just wondering if bounds checking is still optional but is now op-out
instead of opt-in, or if it's something that you can no longer turn off.
The whole idea of correct behaviour being an option is pretty bad, but
hopef
For what it may be worth, executing the same commands into MySQL
5.0.15-nt-max (Win XP Pro) the following it received:
mysql> create table test (i1 int);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.41 sec)
mysql> insert into test values (123913284723498723423);
ERROR 1264 (22003): Out of range value adjusted fo
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 17:19, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> But PostgreSQL won't mangle your data to make it fit without even a
> notice, like MySQL will.
Note, in all fairness, MySQL 5.0.12 now does throw a warning when
mangling my data. Why the client doesn't display it is beyond me. Why
it's not an
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 15:37, Jan wrote:
> I need a database capable of storing at least 12 million records per
> table, mostly used for batch queries. Basically an invoice database.
> Some tables could potentially store 100 million records.
>
> mySQL5 contains many of the features or PostgreSQL, a
Jan wrote:
I need a database capable of storing at least 12 million records per
table, mostly used for batch queries. Basically an invoice database.
Some tables could potentially store 100 million records.
It does not sound like your performance requirements are very demanding.
Either databas
Alex Turner wrote:
I would ask you to ask the reverse question, why would you use MySQL when it
still doesn't contain all the features of postgresql, has a bad query
optimizer, a poor track record on scalability and will silenty
truncate/accept invalid data, invalidating ACID, not only that you h
I would ask you to ask the reverse question, why would you use MySQL
when it still doesn't contain all the features of postgresql, has a bad
query optimizer, a poor track record on scalability and will silenty
truncate/accept invalid data, invalidating ACID, not only that you have
to pay for it.
W
