Invisible wrote:
> MySQL isn't transactional = I'm not really interested.

It is if you use InnoDB engine tables. Note, it's about five times 
slower, but it's transactional.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> MySQL isn't transactional = I'm not really interested.
> 
> It is if you use InnoDB engine tables. Note, it's about five times 
> slower, but it's transactional.

Last I heard, it's transactional yet still not 100% ACID-compliant.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47615af1$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Maybe I'll just use M$ Access. [Obviously that means I can only use
> computers which have M$ Access.]
>

No, you just need the access ODBC driver (which comes with the standad MDAC
package) You'll need a copy of access to create the database, you don't to
access the file over ODBC (or OleDB).
Not sure about the licencing implications, but I'm guessing you aren't too
concerned about that either.

Other option you can try is to download SQL Server Express. It's limited in
size of DBs it can handle, but is fine for testing.
If you download the management studio pack as well, you get a nice GUI
frontend for it. Otherwise you'll have to access it through command line

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

>> Maybe I'll just use M$ Access. [Obviously that means I can only use
>> computers which have M$ Access.]
>>
> 
> No, you just need the access ODBC driver (which comes with the standad MDAC
> package) You'll need a copy of access to create the database, you don't to
> access the file over ODBC (or OleDB).
> Not sure about the licencing implications, but I'm guessing you aren't too
> concerned about that either.

Hmm, interesting.

So you're only paying for the GUI frontend, but the database engine? (If 
indeed it warrents the term "engine"...)

> Other option you can try is to download SQL Server Express. It's limited in
> size of DBs it can handle, but is fine for testing.
> If you download the management studio pack as well, you get a nice GUI
> frontend for it. Otherwise you'll have to access it through command line

Or, alternatively, you can apparently download the full version of 
Oracle for free - provided you promise to never ever use it "for real", 
only "for test purposes". Apparently. And I already know how to work 
Oracle...

But yes, Access would probably be much simpler just for test purposes.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:476160fb@news.povray.org...
>
> > Other option you can try is to download SQL Server Express. It's limited
in
> > size of DBs it can handle, but is fine for testing.
> > If you download the management studio pack as well, you get a nice GUI
> > frontend for it. Otherwise you'll have to access it through command line
>
> Or, alternatively, you can apparently download the full version of
> Oracle for free - provided you promise to never ever use it "for real",
> only "for test purposes". Apparently. And I already know how to work
> Oracle...

You can get a full version of SQL server for $50, feature equivalent to
Enterprise edition, just not licenced for production usage. Only really
worthwhile for people who work with SQL a lot.

I know there's a free version of Oracle, wasn't aware it was all the
features of the top version..

SQL Express is a restricted feature set, but it can be used anywhere,
including on production systems, free.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> I know there's a free version of Oracle, wasn't aware it was all the
> features of the top version..

Yeah. I was surprised too. But, apparently, when you "buy" Oracle they 
send you a "media kit" that contains all the products, but only license 
you to install the one you paid for. Hmm, I wonder how they can tell?

> SQL Express is a restricted feature set, but it can be used anywhere,
> including on production systems, free.

I plan to use PostgreSQL for the final thing, or maybe Oracle, but right 
now I just wanna test. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> MySQL isn't transactional = I'm not really interested.
>>
>> It is if you use InnoDB engine tables. Note, it's about five times 
>> slower, but it's transactional.
> 
> Last I heard, it's transactional yet still not 100% ACID-compliant.

Well, no, but it's transactional. The A and I and D parts, I think.  I'm 
not sure whether it has support for the C part, since it insists on 
having defaults for every data type, so things like declaring a column 
"not null" and not providing a value isn't an error.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> SQL Express is a restricted feature set, but it can be used anywhere,
> including on production systems, free.

I'll note that the features that are restricted are performance 
features, not SQL features as such. E.g., it'll only process one request 
at a time, only run on one core, won't do hot backups, stuff like that. 
But in theory anything you write on "real" SQL Server will run without 
change on SQL Express, as long as timing isn't an issue.

I used SQL Express in one project I did where other things (wireless 
bandwidth, primarily) kept us down to a couple of transactions a second, 
and it worked fine.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 
> MySQL isn't transactional = I'm not really interested.
> 
> 

What is it, you are trying to do?  In English please, not feature babble.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Galvin wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>>
>> MySQL isn't transactional = I'm not really interested.
>>
>>
> 
> What is it, you are trying to do?  In English please, not feature babble.

"Transactional" is a very basic functionallity for any product claiming 
to be a "database".

Basically it's very difficult to design a system such that multiple 
users can access the data at once, and yet not screw it up. This hard 
problem is one of the many things a database is supposed to solve. So a 
database that fails to solve this problem doesn't really interest me 
very much.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message