| |||||||||||||
SCALE 8x: Relational vs. non-relationalSCALE 8x: Relational vs. non-relationalPosted Mar 5, 2010 19:15 UTC (Fri) by einstein (subscriber, #2052)Parent article: SCALE 8x: Relational vs. non-relational
While he made some good points, the anti-mysql propoganda was a bit much - lumping mysql together with ms access with a straight face, claiming that mysql lacks transaction support, he came off sounding like some unstable and embittered crank, resentful of the success of the competition and consumed with putting them down at every opportunity.
Just for the record, from the official mysql documentation: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/commit.html
Comparing the postgres of tomorrow with the mysql of 1997, way to go!
(Log in to post comments)
SCALE 8x: Relational vs. non-relational Posted Mar 5, 2010 19:34 UTC (Fri) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> he came off sounding like some unstable and embittered crank, resentful
> of the success of the competition and consumed with putting them down > at every opportunity.
Wow, I am going to have to disagree. While Josh was a tiny bit PostgreSQL partisan in his talk, he was most certainly not unstable or embittered. If my report makes him seem that way, then I reported poorly, for which you (and he) have my apologies.
jake
SCALE 8x: Relational vs. non-relational Posted Mar 7, 2010 23:01 UTC (Sun) by tack (subscriber, #12542) [Link]
Your reporting is fine (excellent, in fact). The GP and I have clearly read a different article.
Your wording most certainly did not "lump together MySQL and MS Access." The only legitimate complaint concerning MySQL (InnoDB supports transactions) has been pointed out and defended (MySQL+MyISAM is the default, and therefore "the most popular database").
|
|||||||||||||