Re: [cobalt-users] Wish List...

[Kris Dahl <krislists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 8/7/00 5:22 AM, Robert G. Fisher at rfisher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 03:26:53PM +1000, James Robertson wrote:
>> At 03:11 3/08/2000, Kris Dahl wrote:
>> 
>>> I think I, too, asked the question of why they went with Interbase--by all
>>> the accounts I have found it is inferior to MySQL and PostgreSQL.  Support
>>> is lacking as well.
>> 
>> I'm far from an expert here, but:
>> 
>> My understanding is that Interbase has features such as
>> transaction control, rollback, etc which are missing from
>> MySQL.
> 
> Yes, but these features are not missing from PostgreSQL,
> which is what shipped with the RaQ3, and still does with
> the RaQ4 from what I hear.  In fact, there are only two
> features obviously lacking in PostgreSQL, sub-selects
> which should be available in a not too distant future
> and replication, which is not available in any opensourced
> database as yet.

You're right about that.

Sub selects can be nice, but by no means are necessary, and often times are
a crutch for less experienced developers.  What I mean by that is not using
sub selects is a good way to make sure your queries are optimized.  By using
table joins, etc., you can virtually elminate the need for sub selects.

I have found one time that I would have really liked to have been able to
use sub selects in my tenure as a developer.  Ever other time I have managed
to come up with a better query.

But one key feature that Interbase and PostgreSQL are both missing are very
fast performance.  This is, of course, one really nice thing about MySQL.  I
am a firm believer that MySQL will catch up with MSSQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL,
etc. in features before any of them catch up in speed.

I know that Monte and the TCX crew are working hard on getting replication
up to speed on MySQL.  So it is coming.

-k