Re: MySQL 4

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3F32AE33.2AA0420_at_exxesolutions.com...
> Maximus wrote:
>
> > "Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3f3239c9$3$10356$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > "Maximus" <qweqwe_at_qwqwewq.com> wrote in message
> > news:fznYa.646346$ro6.13862150_at_news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > MySQL is fast and simple, sometimes you just don't need all that
fluff
> > that
> > > > comes with Oracle.
> > >
> > >
> > > and comes with just about ANY other database that claims
> > > to be relational?
> > >
> > > BTW: fks, triggers and procedures are "fluff"?
> > > I've got a suggestion: if you don't want "fluff"
> > > like that, try using DBASE4. It should be real
> > > cheap now. And it will be "fast and simple".
> > > Should beat the crap out of mysql nowadays,
> > > with a good P4 processor.
> >
> > Of course all of that fluff is handy, but as I said, sometimes you just
> > don't need it. I utilize both, where cost is a factor I use MySQL,
where it
> > isn't I use Oracle. If you're on the green, use a putter, if you're on
the
> > tee, use a driver
>
> Sometimes you don't need relational integrity either I presume.

Since version 3.23.43b MySQL has supported foreign key constraints when using the InnoDB table type. Received on Thu Aug 07 2003 - 16:19:45 CDT