Re: MySql vs. Oracle

Joe Emenaker wrote:

<snip>

> As an example, I have a MS-Access database that I'm moving to mySQL. In
> Access, I had bunches of stored procedures that called each other... sums of
> unions of joins of other sums. I'd have chains of about 4 or 5 stored
> procedures. This caused a lot of computation when I wanted to query one of
> those procedures. When I decided to move the DB to mySQL, I had to figure
> out how to get what I needed without stored procedures. I was able to do it
> with just two intermediate tables that get updated much less often then they
> get queried. So, not only did I move to a much faster database, but the
> restrictions of mySQL forced me to change to a better-thought-out design of
> my DB.

Sure, a simple tool requires you to think. But the advanced tool does not prohibit the thinking. If you did not think things through using a more advanced tool, you are to blame, not the tool.

> So, I think the mySQL philosophy is "Yes, mySQL makes it harder to do some
> things.... but most of those things that become harder are stupid things
> that you shouldn't have done anyway.".

Let *me* be the one to decide that. If that truly is their philosophy, all the more reason to critize them. Views, transactions, subqueries and triggers are to me all essential parts of a good DBMS; mine to use, if I consider it prudent. Of course that requires me to know the price I may have to pay when using them - that's part of the deal.

(Okay, so triggers are a substitute for explicit declaration of constraints and referential integrities, but they are still the best tool on the market.)

<snip>

--
Kristian Damm Jensen              | Feed the hungry. Go to 
kristian-damm.jensen_at_capgemini.dk | http://www.thehungersite.com