 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> 47642e2a$1@news.povray.org...
>> It just worries me that the designers of this system fundamentally think
>> that transaction integrity is so unimportant that it's not even the
>> default, that's all.
>
> It's not the default because it's not needed in many database applications.
Right. Apparently you have a different idea of "application" to what I
have...
> Frankly, it looks like you just discovered the word "database" yesterday,
> fell in love with a couple of buzzwords even though you still have strictly
> no idea about what a database it and how it works (this thread started about
> *** CSV files *** being used for testing your database). Sorry mate, but you
> can't spout utter nonsense about MySQL and Access being "toys" and be taken
> seriously after that. Get some experience first.
Right. And the 3 modules in database design I took during my degree
looking at different transaction isolation levevls and so forth was
probably balony too - along with the 3 A* grades I got for those modules.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin wrote:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>
>> Frankly, it looks like you just discovered the word "database"
>> yesterday, fell in love with a couple of buzzwords even though you
>> still have strictly no idea about what a database it and how it works
>> (this thread started about *** CSV files *** being used for testing
>> your database).
>>
>
> You forgot reinventing the wheel.
>
> He's writing a helpdesk! That's IT 101.
>
>
> If it's for fun, that's one thing. If it's to meet a business need,
> then put in one that has been tested, debugged and gained a little
> maturity. Your users will thank you, and the person who takes the job
> after you will be deligheted not to inherit a undocumented
> haskell/oracle monster.
I'm writing it because I'm fed up of everybody using Excel spreadsheets
to record everything when we could use a real database, that's all. It's
not like I'm planning on building a *large* system...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Know something? The default is also to commit after every statement on
> most DBs too. So? :-)
Really? I've yet to see that...
(We won't go into what a hugely bad idea that would be.)
> Yes, MySql *started out* tremendously simplified. But it's like you're
> complaining about how DOS looses disk clusters if you don't close the
> file properly, while evaluating XP.
So you're seriously telling me that the amaturish little program that's
not even transactional by default has somehow magically become an
enterprise-level product?
>>> Whatever you do to enforce transactional integrity? It takes resources.
>> Now that at least is a valid statement.
>
> Yah. In my experience, it's about a 5:1 ratio. When I realized that, I
> changed most of my tables to non-transactional. There's nothing I'm
> running on the tables that isn't idempotent.
5:1 time or space? On which specific database implementation? (It's not
like it will be the same for all of them.)
Personally, if I had the option if making the system go 5x faster, but
possibly screw up, I'd stick with the slow mode. But apparently that's
just me...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Damn you're dense. :-)
>
> He does program in Haskell.
Sorry. I was hoping that would be taken in the spirit of the
smiley-face. :-)
--
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:
> Tom Galvin wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn you're dense. :-)
>>
>> He does program in Haskell.
>
> Sorry. I was hoping that would be taken in the spirit of the
> smiley-face. :-)
It does seem a little uncalled for.
Still, I've been called much worse...
(And at least he didn't threaten to rape my family.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> 47642e2a$1@news.povray.org...
>>> It just worries me that the designers of this system fundamentally
>>> think that transaction integrity is so unimportant that it's not even
>>> the default, that's all.
>>
>> It's not the default because it's not needed in many database
>> applications.
>
> Right. Apparently you have a different idea of "application" to what I
> have...
A program to organize your CD collection counts as an application.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Know something? The default is also to commit after every statement
>> on most DBs too. So? :-)
>
> Really? I've yet to see that...
Funky. It looks like oracle doesn't do transactions by default either:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/berkeley-db/db/gsg_txn/C/enabletxn.html
Oh, and look. Microsoft sql server:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa213069(SQL.80).aspx
> So you're seriously telling me that the amaturish little program
> that's not even transactional by default has somehow magically become
> an enterprise-level product?
Yes. Well, no, not magically. By dint of hard work by dozens or
hundreds of people over the course of five or ten years.
"Are you seriously telling me this ameturish DOS thing that doesn't even
support processes has somehow magically become a serious multiuser
enterprise-level operating system?
> 5:1 time or space? On which specific database implementation? (It's
> not like it will be the same for all of them.)
Time.
> Personally, if I had the option if making the system go 5x faster,
> but possibly screw up, I'd stick with the slow mode. But apparently
> that's just me...
Except, as explained, it's not a case of "probably screw up". I have one
processes that inserts independent records into the database, and
another that looks at the most recent record with some particular
attribute. I fail to see how the lack of transactions will damage that.
> Right. And the 3 modules in database design I took during my degree looking at
different transaction isolation levevls and so forth was probably balony too - along
with the 3 A* grades I got for those modules.
You must have a different definition for "experience" than usual.
From another part of the thread...
> It does seem a little uncalled for.
Yah. Sorry. But seriously, dude, when several someones tell you you're
wrong, and point you to the information, and it's written right there in
front of you, arguing that "you don't believe it" makes you seem kind of
dense. Especially when it's not God you're arguing about, but an
open-source well-documented program used by thousands of companies all
over the world.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Tom Galvin wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Damn you're dense. :-)
>>>
>>> He does program in Haskell.
>>
>> Sorry. I was hoping that would be taken in the spirit of the
>> smiley-face. :-)
>
> It does seem a little uncalled for.
>
Andrew has a penchant for doing things the hard way for perceived
elegance. Haskell is but one example.
He also is inclined to disregard the voice of experience, with some
regularity.
If it seems harsh, good. Maybe he will take the blinders of dogma off
for a second and listen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
> I'm writing it because I'm fed up of everybody using Excel spreadsheets
> to record everything when we could use a real database, that's all. It's
> not like I'm planning on building a *large* system...
>
Why reinvent the wheel?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Galvin" <tom### [at] imp nospamorg> wrote in message
news:476446ac@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> > Tom Galvin wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm going to build [yet another] helpdesk application.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Then mysql is more than adequate to the task.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Hmmm who should I listen to? Gail the professional DBA, who is flown all
> over the world for database technology conferences, with many years of
> experience, or Andrew? Sorry mate.
Actually Darren wrote that, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
Given a choice, I'd listn to Darren who's worked extensivle (from what he
says) with MySQL. Personally I'm a SQL Server fan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
