Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 37FC9D0A.A37F79F2@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
Список | 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@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: