#mysql
06 November 2007
Total 30 pages. You are browsing page 4/30.
First :: Prev :: [...] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [...] :: Next :: Last
02:54 <****> I think you'll need to do WHERE id IN (11, 10, 9) unless you're using syntax that I'm not familiar with
02:54 <****> testnick: what table are you deleting the records from?
02:54 <****> oooooo
02:54 <****> lol thats what the other guys said earlier
02:54 <****> table 1 :P
02:55 <****> the table is actually called "1"? Interesting.
02:55 <****> yessir
02:55 <****> testnick: poor name for a table.
02:55 <****> i know
02:56 <****> but its the only way i could get the order i needed for my listing of tables
02:56 <****> _Lemon_: i have 4 indexes, all are primary
02:56 <****> testnick: why did you need the tables in a particular listing order?
02:56 <****> they were previously named week1 week2 ect...
02:56 <****> because it went week1 week10 week 11 ect...
02:56 <****> how is that an issue?
02:56 <****> xuser: Are you.... sure about that? :s
02:57 <****> i need 1-16 in order for menu
02:57 <****> oh. maybe a better naming scheme would have been week001, week002 and so on. but even that's not all that meaningful.
02:57 <****> well its meaningful to my purpose
02:57 <****> _Lemon_: thats what mysqladministrator says in the table editor
02:57 <****> but ill remember that scheme if itll help me keep the order better
02:58 * thoughtful nods. Ah, you only want the advice you agree with.
02:58 <****> ill use it for version 2
02:58 <****> xuser: I've just double checked this, you can't have more than one PRIMARY KEY :s
02:58 <****> right now im still beta stage
02:59 <****> but i like the 001 idea
02:59 <****> _Lemon_: ok, the i have one that has four index columns.
02:59 <****> it's a precarious design, at best
03:00 <****> s/the/then/
03:00 <****> thanks for the input
03:00 <****> it was all helpful
03:00 <****> xuser: ok, there is a *big* difference, what column type is the PK on?
03:02 <****> I have decided to start using SQL strict only with no MySQL extensions. Is this feasible? What do I need to know to do so? Should I set some flag?
03:03 <****> _Lemon_: int, varchar, datetime, those?
03:03 <****> I want to make it easy to port to a different database software the day MySQL AB goes nuts.
03:03 <****> The PRIMARY KEY must have unique values for it, that's why I'm asking about that one, that is where your problem lies...
03:04 <****> yay it works
03:05 <****> _Lemon_: oh i see
03:05 <****> smoke break time
03:05 <****> then its time towork on the edit feature :D
03:05 <****> _Lemon_: yeah, then yes, the PK has repeated values
03:05 <****> Hello?
03:06 <****> :)
03:06 <****> !man strict standards
03:06 <****> Nothing found.
03:06 <****> err, Google it I guess
03:06 <****> !man strict mode
03:06 <****> (The Server SQL Mode) : http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/server-sql-mode.html
03:06 <****> Why do you think MySQL AB will go nuts?
03:06 <****> We'll still have the source code, as it's all GPLed
03:07 <****> and I'm sure Google/Yahoo etc would do something drastic
03:08 <****> _Lemon_: i export the file from msaccess database, created the table in mysql and wanted to load the data.
03:08 <****> !man load data infile
03:08 <****> (Problems with NULL Values) : http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/problems-with-null.html
03:09 <****> if PK are duplicated, how can i load it?
03:09 <****> PK values
03:09 <****> xuser: What was the PK on in msaccess? Worst comes to the worst, create a new column and make that PK then put an auto_increment on it - it should load fine then
03:09 <****> Wait... what? Is "ANSI" the closest MySQL gets to strictly following the SQL standard? And this is just "more closely"? Not perfectly?
03:10 <****> _Lemon_: ok, let me try.
03:10 <****> legolas-San: You also have to think about how well the other databases support strict standards
03:10 <****> logolas-San: which sql standard? there are a few. and not many rdbms's follow them strictly
03:10 <****> There nothing to gain if MySQL is the only one that tries to keep near it
03:10 <****> Hrm.
03:10 <****> Sounds like it's impossible to make portable SQL code.
03:11 <****> I don't see how many things could differ, though. SQL isn't THAT big...
03:11 <****> legolas-San, ahahahaha.
03:12 <****> Simetrical: ?
03:12 <****> legolas-San: example. sql-99 is a standard for sql statements. but database servers can have different ways of handling invalid input.
03:12 <****> Implemtations vary widly.
03:13 <****> Dammit. :(
03:13 <****> Nobody ever follows standards.
03:13 <****> ANyone have some performance tests between mysql and MS sql?
03:13 <****> what does this do : ALTER TABLE products ADD KEY ppp (productcode,provider,productid);
03:13 <****> Guess I'll just have to go through all queries and vacuum-clean them whenver I change database.
03:13 <****> legolas-San: because they seek a competitive advantage in the enterprise marketplace.
03:14 <****> sander_: I think it's pretty safe to say that anything that MS does is technically inferior to everything else out there
03:14 <****> ki77a77: Hrm.
03:14 <****> ki77a77: Is that cynical reason the only reason?
03:14 <****> Could it not be different philosophies?
03:14 <****> legolas-San, A programmer I know says MS sql is faster with heavy load.. wondring if that is true or not
03:15 <****> I've seen statistics say that MySQL is slower than other databases
03:15 <****> _Lemon_: I've seen statistics.
03:15 <****> legolas-San: that observation about M$ may be emotionally satisfying but it is demonstrably incorrect.
03:16 <****> It's very hard to say even with benchmarks
03:16 <****> ki77a77: Technically inferior can be better sometimes... sadly.
03:16 <****> _Lemon_, you know where I can get those statisicts?
03:16 <****> what does this do : ALTER TABLE products ADD KEY ppp (productcode,provider,productid); anyone know what this does exactly?
03:16 <****> MS Access = one text type, but anyone can use it.
03:17 <****> It's been aaaages since I stumbled across them, but via Google, the MySQL performance blogs, they're all out there, just remember to take them as a pinch of salt
03:17 <****> zoobie: it adds a multi-column index to the table.
03:17 <****> ki77a : what would be the opposite patch of it?
03:17 <****> to reverse
03:17 <****> zoobie: sorry, I don't understand your question. Do you want to remove the index?
03:18 <****> ki77a: i patched with this statement, i want to undo it
03:18 <****> hey getting my feet wet wth mySQL. Coming from postgresql. Innodb should able to handle most things right? FKs, indexes, etc...
03:18 <****> zoobie: alter table tablename drop index ppp; ?
03:19 <****> so i would only need the ppp then in that statement?
03:19 <****> out of curiousity, why would you switch from postgres to mysql?
03:19 <****> Led_Zeppelin: innodb can do transactions, too. It cannot do fulltext indexes.
03:20 <****> zoobie: if your intent is to delete the index, then try it and see. What have you got to lose?
Total 30 pages. You are browsing page 4/30.
First :: Prev :: [...] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [...] :: Next :: Last