sql 92 support in postgres

Eric -
I've redirected your question to the general list, since it seems to fit
in there better than the sql list. I think you're confusing mySQL's
limitations with those of PostgreSQL (PG from here on) - PG does in fact
support views, has for quite a while. They're even updateable. With each
release, more and more of the SQL92 function set is implemented, and
what's not can usually be worked around. I'm new to all this DB stuff,
myself, but I haven't bumped up against limitations of the
implementation yet - I hit the limits of my knowledge first!

As to mySQL, I've never used it, but I understand it's a very fast, but
limited, subset of SQL. The biggest drawback I see referenced is the
lack of transaction support.

My 2 cents,

Ross

Eric Enockson wrote:

hi,

I am going to be implementing an online database and
was considering oracle on an ultra, until i checked the price
and 2,000 dollars, no way. I have used mSQL and looked
at mySQL and now am aware of postgres and have heard that it
is the most robust and well used of the freeware databases.
Is this correct? Also i am wondering about it's sql 92 support,
i see that it doesn't have views and some other things, but my
question is this. For those of you who are using it, what is your
opinion of it's functionality sql wise? Is it sufficient, do
wish that you had more? If you could afford it would you rather
be using oracle? I can afford oracle as i'm not going to be
paying, but 2000 just seems unresonable. I don't want to
pay for suits and corporate planes, i just want to run software.

Any help, comments, advice would be greatly appreciated.

Eric Enockson

--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005

I second the opinion that postgreSQL implements a very flexible and
extensive set of SQL functionality.

$2000 is chump change if the application is a mission critical one. The
Costs of losing the data or downtime of the database easily exceed $2000 (in
probably the first minutes of downtime). I think in your choice of
databases this is one of the more important factors to consider. There are
also many competitors to Oracle too out there which you might want to
consider...

PostgreSQL is great especially since its free. It fills the niche nicely
for low cost med intensity applications like small/med size business
e-commerce apps. I don't think I would want to run something like a multi
national manufacturing firm's real time data acquisition system off of the
database.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu>
To: eric@broken.net <eric@broken.net>
Cc: PGSQL-General (E-mail) <pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org>
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 2:22 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] Re: [SQL] sql 92 support in postgres

At 14:59 3/25/99 -0500, you wrote:

I second the opinion that postgreSQL implements a very flexible and
extensive set of SQL functionality.

$2000 is chump change if the application is a mission critical one. The
Costs of losing the data or downtime of the database easily exceed $2000 (in
probably the first minutes of downtime). I think in your choice of
databases this is one of the more important factors to consider. There are
also many competitors to Oracle too out there which you might want to
consider...

Yes, it is chump change, and Oracle is not the only answer (although they
would like you to believe it). Informix, DB-2, Sybase, Solid are all good
data bases and also run on Linux.

Competition is wonderful!

Regards,

Jim

--------------------------------------------------------
FSC - Building Better Information Technology Solutions-
From the Production Floor to the Customer's Door.
--------------------------------------------------------

Jim Jennis, Technical Director, Commercial Systems
Fuentez Systems Concepts, Inc.
1161Y Winchester Ave.
Martinsburg, WV. 25401 USA.

Phone: +001 (304) 264-2290
FAX: +001 (304) 263-8777

Email: jjennis@fuentez.com
jhjennis@shentel.net
---------------------------------------------------

Hi!

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:

As to mySQL, I've never used it, but I understand it's a very fast, but

I had some experience with MySQL, and yes - it is very fast.

limited, subset of SQL. The biggest drawback I see referenced is the
lack of transaction support.

What is worse, authors of MySQL claimed that transactions and triggers
would never find its way into MySQL, as it slows down every SQL query.

--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005

Oleg.
----
Oleg Broytmann http://members.xoom.com/phd2/ phd2@earthling.net
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.