Mary Stickney wrote:
> thanks Serge..
> incidentally my very first post to the list contained my query , and is the
> reason I joined this list in the first place.
> This 3 year sales report has been running for over 24 hours now. this is
> unacceptable, since they also wanbt a 5 year
> one and I am sure that will take 5 years to run... at this rate.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Serge Paquin [mailto:serge@stripped]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:01 AM
> To: Mark Matthews
> Cc: mary.stickney@stripped; mysql@stripped
> Subject: Re: MySQL vs. Oracle (not speed)
> I think this is a touch on the negative side. I'm sure many people get
> soured on MySQL when they to a post here and get yelled at for not trying
> hard enough. It sounds like Mary is having a valid problem. Her query
> works fast in one database and slow in the other. Because she did not come
> out and put her table schema and sql in the first email is no reason to
> insult her. I think a helping hand is a better approach. Mabey a couple
> general suggestions on MySQL tuning and a "We would need to see the schema
> and SQL statement to help further". I agree that it seems very strange that
> MS-SQL runs fater than MySQL on a query. Microsoft seems to always be
> plaiged with performance problems. Insulting someone will not help convert
> them to MySQL it will drive people away.
> Anyway enough of my rant...
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:46:44 -0500
> "Mark Matthews" <mmatthew@stripped> wrote:
>>Mary Stickney wrote:
>>>What exactly is Trolling....
>>>I find MYSQL to be slow , sorry if that doesn't met with your approval.
>>But you don't give examples.
>>I've found MS-SQL to be slow at times, especially when used from JDBC,
>>but I don't make crack comments about it newsgroups without backing up
>>Why don't you show us your queries? Do you really care to learn if MySQL
>>could be faster and you're just using it wrong?
I didn't intend it to be insulting. Maybe people are oversensitive. The
problem is that it was very easy to take Mary's e-mail out of context,
because there was no hint that she was having problems and was therfore
upset over that...The volume in this e-mail list is tremendous, we don't
see all messages.
If someone's going to make a negative comment as a reply to some
un-related e-mail, and then say "But I posted my problem earlier" but
never refer to it in the email containing the negative comment that is
un-related to their problem, then it is a bit of a leap to assume that
people that respond will have read _every_ message in this list, and be
able to connect the two.
If anyone found me harsh, I apologize, but I didn't intend the message
to come off that way.
Just remember that if you expect answers here, you need to help us a
little, we're not omniscient, and not all of us read every single e-mail
on this list....Heck, there's been 113 today and the day's not over!