Sybren Stuvel wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber enlightened us with:
> > I believe that since 4.1, the "default table format" is InnoDB, and
> > that DOES have some support foreign keys and transactions.
>
> Finally they are starting to make more sense. I'd still rather use a
> database that has had those
Dennis Lee Bieber enlightened us with:
> I believe that since 4.1, the "default table format" is InnoDB, and
> that DOES have some support foreign keys and transactions.
Finally they are starting to make more sense. I'd still rather use a
database that has had those features for a longer time, tho
Kalle Anke wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:45 +0100, Peter Hansen wrote:
>>Don't optimize prematurely? If you use something like SQLObject, or any
>>other means of abstracting yourself away from the details of a specific
>>datbase, you won't be particularly tied to it if you decide you need
Just a few comments...
Database:
As with anything else, try to keep it simple until you need to make it
complex.
Sqlite is the simplier alternative, and it's also the fastest for the
intended use (small number of users, simple selects, etc). MySQL is
also a very good alternative and much more powe
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:45 +0100, Peter Hansen wrote
(in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
> SQLite. (As but one option, but "just basic selects" is certainly
> included in the set of suitable conditions for SQLite use.)
I've considered to use SQLite for an application but for completely differen
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:19:11 +0100, bruno at modulix wrote
(in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
> The reason is mostly that either you need a real, full-blown, rock-solid
> RDBMS - which MySQL is definitively not - or you dont - in which case
> SQLite is probably a much more lightweight and agile so
Kalle Anke enlightened us with:
> What about speed? I've always had the impression that while
> PostgreSQL is more complete than MySQL it's also slower.
For simple queries, I believe (no real knowledge here) MySQL is indeed
faster. One of the problems I have with MySQL is that it doesn't
support f
Kalle Anke wrote:
> I always thought that a SQLlite database "belonged" to a single process, can
> a database be used by several processes?
Depending on what you mean by "belong", that's either true or false.
Certainly multiple processes can access a SQLite database, although as
the documentati
vpr enlightened us with:
> I want to build an Website using Apache / Python and MySQL.
I second Bruno: swap MySQL in favour of PostgreSQL.
> e.g. should I be using mod_python ?
You could use my framework based on mod_python and Cheetah. I find it
really easy to use. Check out http://www.unrealto
Kalle Anke wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:32:34 +0100, Sybren Stuvel wrote
> (in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
>
>
>>I second Bruno: swap MySQL in favour of PostgreSQL.
>
>
> And the reason is ?? (apart from PostgreSQL being larger and more complete,
> what are the differences for "simple" us
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:32:34 +0100, Sybren Stuvel wrote
(in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
> I second Bruno: swap MySQL in favour of PostgreSQL.
And the reason is ?? (apart from PostgreSQL being larger and more complete,
what are the differences for "simple" usage?)
jem
--
http://
vpr wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I want to build an Website using Apache / Python and MySQL.
Good choice, good choice, bad choice...
Why not using PostgresSQL (if you need a *real* RDBMS) or SQLite (if you
don't...)
> I dont want to spend to much time hacking html. I'm looking for some
> recommendations
Hi All
I want to build an Website using Apache / Python and MySQL.
I dont want to spend to much time hacking html. I'm looking for some
recommendations
e.g. should I be using mod_python ?
whats the best module for mysql ?
any suggestings so I could get my site up in a day ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
13 matches
Mail list logo
