Re: SQL standards in Mysql

On 2008-02-22 16:13, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> There's example after example of things in the mysql bug database that should make anyone considering it as a database engine cringe and walk away shaking their head.
I don't understand why anyone wanting a real SQL DB would pick MySQL.

Four years ago I knew nothing about SQL (I still pronounce it S-Q-L),
but wanted to set up a real DB with the maximum flexibility. So, I:

1. Asked a friend in the DB world (primarily Oracle) what he
recommended, and he said "MySQL".
2. I then bought a book on SQL ("Using SQL", by Rafe Colburn, ISBN
0-7897-1974-6, © 2000 Que Publishing), which mentions every common SQL
DB __except__ PostgreSQL.

So, I went with PostgreSQL. Why? From the book, it was clear that
MySQL lacked so many features of a decent SQL DB. In particular (at the
time) VIEWs and sub-selects. I didn't know much about VIEWs and
sub-selects, but it appeared to me that they were pretty
important/powerful features that any SQL DB should have. PostgreSQL was
the only one left standing (at least on my budget). (I ran it on a
Pentium 233 for a year before I upgraded the hardware.)

As of now, MySQL has VIEWs and sub-selects, but there appear to be a
number of other little "gotchas" that lurk (which the original poster of
this and the related threads has so amply illustrated). One of the
advantage of standards-compliant software is that, while you may be
surprised by some feature, that feature has been examined by a number of
people and (typically) found to be the best way of being consistent in a
broader view, rather than a feature that has been written (or not) for
the sake of expediency in a particular implementation. Further, many
standards are features that, while sometimes not met by existing
implementations, are at least a goal of consistency and functionality
that is aspired to (and usually planned for in future releases).

The sad fact is that we live in a world of expediency (not to mention a
bit of hype). Many people don't even do the elementary research that I
did before glibly picking a DB for their server, in their rush to be the
next dot-com (or other) success. As a result, PostgreSQL is not
supported by some software packages. For example, I think phpBB is the
only major message board software that supports PostgreSQL (see
http://www.phpbb.com/about/features/compare.php ), and in fact has for
some time. Of course, they have a DB abstraction layer (wow, what an
concept!), which allows them to easily support a number of DBs. Of
course, what does that tell you about the level of design and
professionalism of phpBB versus the others? Note that I have no
connection with the phpBB project, and in fact find many of the
developers arrogant. I'm just saying that any software that doesn't
support a number of DBs probably wasn't designed and/or implemented
properly.

Hopefully, some event in the near future will tip the scales in the
public perception of SQL DBs, and PostgreSQL will get better respect.

-- Dean

--
Mail to my list address MUST be sent via the mailing list.
All other mail to my list address will bounce.