Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, luuk(at)wxs(dot)nl
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison
Date: 1999-10-07 13:15:54
Message-ID: 37FC9D0A.A37F79F2@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> My opinion on this tends to be that, in the HAVING case, we are the only
> one that doesn't support it w/o aggregates, so we altho we do follow the
> spec, we are making it slightly more difficult to migrate from 'the
> others' to us...

We follow the spec in what we support, but the spec *does* allow
HAVING w/o aggregates (and w/o any GROUP BY clause).

Tom, imho we absolutely should *not* emit warnings for unusual but
legal constructs. Our chapter on "syntax" can start addressing these
kinds of topics, but the backend probably isn't the place to teach SQL
style...

> Benchmarks, IMHO, always try to favor the 'base product' that is being
> advertised...but, more often then not, its because the person doing the
> benchmarking knows that product well enough to be able to 'tweak' it to
> perform better...Luuk, so far as I believe, is willing to be "educated in
> PostgreSQL"...I don't think its right for us to stifle that, is it?

Right. Sorry Luuk for going off on ya...

- Thomas

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 1999-10-07 13:30:44 Re: [HACKERS] psql and comments
Previous Message Alessio Bragadini 1999-10-07 11:43:30 (no subject)