Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 14:37:09 +1300 (NZDT) From: Andrew McNaughton <andrew@squiz.co.nz> To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: Yani Brankov <ian@bulinfo.net>, database@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mysql 321 - Mysql 322 - msql Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811291403100.15773-100000@aniwa.sky> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811281551150.457-100000@thelab.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Yani Brankov wrote: > > > Andrew McNaughton wrote: > > > > > > > It's possibly stronger on features, but it's slower than mysql. It is > > > speed he's emphasizing. > > > > > > > Yes. It's much stronger on features, but (i heard, never tried it) mysql > > doesn't have commit/rollback command. It's a very big disadvantage. > > The last time this was discussed on the PostgreSQL lists, the > argument went that mySQL can't call itself a true RDBMS because it doesn't > support one thing that was considered to be *crucial* to any > RBDMS...transactions > > Whether this is still true or not, I don't know, since I don't use > MySQL... >From the version 3.21.29 documentation: * 18.8 Some things we don't have any plans to do. * * Transactions with rollback (we mainly do selects, and because we * don't do transactions we can be much quicker on everything else). * We will support some kind of atomic operations on multiple tables * though. Currently atomic operations can be done with LOCK * TABLES/UNLOCK TABLES but we will make this more automatic in the * future. How much of a problem this is depends on how many threads are going to be trying to get at the tables at once. Andrew McNaughton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-database" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9811291403100.15773-100000>