> Maybe the US Air Force has an unlimited budget but the rest of us do not.
> It seems to me that they "powers that be" in Nguyen's shop have made a
> decision (rational or not, you know how some managers are) to move away
> from a PREMIUM-priced package like 9i to something that can perform
> comparably to 9i but at a small fraction of the cost. Calling it an "8th
> grade toy" makes you sound uninformed of what MySQL is really capable of.
> Sure MySQL may have a few fewer "bells and whistles" than Oracle but if
> you don't need to rely on all of the gee-whiz and just need fast, stable
> data storage and retrieval, MySQL is an excellent choice. Besides, most of
> those "fancy things" in the premium databases can be duplicated or nearly
> duplicated using very little client-side code. Of the things that cannot
> be run in client-side code (I am particularly thinking of stored
> procedures and triggers) those are coming in 5.0.x.
> Do you think NASA, Yahoo, and a host of other Fortune 100 companies made a
> mistake by using MySQL in their production enviroments? I don't.
It all depends on the application it's used for.
MySQL 5 is a very nice release - once stable, of course - but in some
it has a long way to go.
No doubt, many Oracle applications can be converted to MySQL, but this
is because those applications don't use Oracle well enough :)
IMO, duplicating something that can, could and should be done on the server
in client code is a step backwards. In earlier days, the "foreign key
like described in the MySQL documentation was a shining example of ignorance
on the part of the documentation writers. Luckily, InnoDB has foreign key
But there are plenty of other applications that cannot be converted to
no doubt, some run fine and dandy... We use MySQL here in the office as
but use InterBase and Firebird for others...
The right tool for the job makes the whole difference.
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Database development questions? Check the forum!