Re: comparing Oracle and mysql

Just cause some group at NASA wants to use MySQL shouldn't be viewed as an of endorsement of MySQL. Remember these are the people that forgot to convert English units to metric units in their calculations of a recent lander to Mars. (e.g. 32 ft./s^2 is much different than 9.75 m/s^2 if you ignore the units!) (Lockheed Martian mainly does work for the US Air Force who uses English units e.g. 2000 lb. bombs not 909 kilo bombs; LM had defined all measurements and agreed upon - in a data conversion document - the agreed upon units)

Jim

"Pino Gargiulo" <jk3380_at_naida.org> wrote in message news:93vfjm$kpj$1_at_fe2.cs.interbusiness.it...
>
> "David Pomphrey" <High.Flight_at_btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:3A61BB56.3780_at_btinternet.com...
> > I think you just fell victim to a practial joke - or in other words, a
> > usenet troll.
>
> Sorry, you are wrong! I wasn't trolling at all, mine is a real problem!
>
> Since I have absolutely no experience with MySQL I've done some surfing
> trying to find the most relevant missing features in MySQL. Here is what
> I've found and consider important
>
> - foreign keys
> - sub selects
> - bind variables
> - atomic transactions
> - online backup
> - native java support (not relevant in my case, sorry Sybrand Bakker)
>
> More difficult to evaluate is speed. Apparently MySQL's main feature
> is speed but is seems to degrade quite quickly as load increases (info
 found
> on Postgres mailing list). This make me wonder about the headline on MySQL
> website stating that "NASA switches from Oracle to MySQL" (small budget
> maybe? 8-))
>
> Last consideration is that security is lacking and many vulnerability
 spots
> have
> been found in MySQL code.
>
> Anybody care to through in some more limitations?
>
> TIA
>
> /PG
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 15 2001 - 19:47:29 CST