RE: mysql - OT

Jared,  

    Thank you. I'll put the flame thrower away.

From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill_at_gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:07 PM
To: maxim.pakhutkin_at_paetec.com
Cc: Goulet, Dick; ORACLE-L_at_freelists.org Subject: Re: mysql - OT

On 4/11/05, Pakhutkin, Maxim (Max) <maxim.pakhutkin_at_paetec.com> wrote:

        transactions, PITR, etc). It's very nice to keep all your code in the =

        application layer and only worry about true RDBMS stuff in the database. =

        The recent push on the part of MySQL to add stored procedure, etc, is =

        them trying to appease the people that demand them because MySQL =         

        apparently is trying to compete against the big guys now. However, their =

You won't find too many here that sympathize with that point of view.

The idea that an RDBMS should simply be a container for data and nothing more is rather naive IMO.

Constraints? History has shown that these should be in the database. Applications cannot be entrusted to enforce constraints.

Applications come and go and get modified. The integrity of the data should be enforced by the database. This is really part of the application,
but not a part that is often touched.

Primary keys, check constraints and foreign keys all fall into this category.

Partitioning. How are you going to do that in an application? This requires some of the aforementioned features.

There are always pieces of an app that would be best run in the database.
It is much faster than external access, and works regardless of which application is accessing the data.

MySQL will get there I believe, but for now it cannot compete with PostgreSQL,
Oracle and SQL Server for features that should be required for any serious
implementation.

-- 
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist



--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l