Re: atomicity

Hello Zak,

ZG> The latest version of MySQL provides the option of supporting
ZG> ACID-compliant transactions and row-level locking

ZG> MySQL supports transactions with InnoDB tables and DBD tables. Users
ZG> are provided with the choice of two different transactional table
ZG> types and two non-transactional table types - one file-based (MyISAM),
ZG> one memory-based (HEAP). The MySQL manual details this information.

MySQL's ridiculous way of handling transactions prompted us to
look at postgres, infact we incurred some amount of data loss as well.
MySQL was used for financials, and I was in real soup when I lost
the data.

As a matter of fact, MySQL didn't even recommend the use of
transactions in some of the documentation and if I am not wrong they
don't guarantee for the usage of Berkeley DB (from sleepycat) for
production environment. InnoDB is no big deal it is much
slower.

ZG> Users can choose the table type that best suits their needs.

Is this a plus point to use MySQL, i find it intriguing

ZG> I also believe that other databases, including MySQL are 'real'
ZG> development tools.

I still believe MySQL is best for websites and not for time-critical
financial applications. MySQL community support, i should say is
amazing.

ZG> MySQL has a large, well-tested feature set that includes fewer
ZG> traditional RDBMS features that PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL and MySQL come
ZG> from very different traditions. PostgreSQL is the heir to quite
ZG> phenonmenal amounts of academic research work that focused on
ZG> developing a complete set of RDBMS features. MySQL evolved from a set
ZG> of working development tools - it was developed with attention to
ZG> speed, stability and performance at the cost of certain features.

Atleast you acknowledge the fact that postgreSQL has evolved through
much more mature process than MySQL.

--
Best regards,
Gurudutt mailto:guru(at)indvalley(dot)com

Life is not fair - get used to it.
Bill Gates