Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> [CC: to general list.]
>
> > I might add that their test lists 52 features of PostgreSQL which
> > MySQL doesn't have (13 functions). It also lists 122 features of
> > MySQL which PostgreSQL doesn't have; 78 of those are extra
> > functions (40 of these, just for M$-ODBC compatibility).
>
> >
> > So it seems that overall, that crash-me test result is reasonably
> > balanced (39 vs. 44 non-function differences -- let's face it,
> > adding another function for compatibility with SQL variant FOO is
> > one of the easier exercises here, whatever the current value of
> > FOO is).
>
> You have to make the test deceptive to get MySQL to be on par with
> PostgreSQL. Period. Doesn't MySQL admit they have fewer features
> than PostgreSQL. How did MySQL get an equal score on features?
> Answer me that one.
That's easy:
MySQL has type mediumint
PostgreSQL has transactions
MySQL allows 'and' as string markers
PostgreSQL has views
MySQL has case insensitive compare
PostgreSQL has referential integrity
MySQL has support for 0000-00-00 dates
PostgreSQL has subqueries
MySQL has 'drop table if exists'
PostgreSQL has multiversion concurrency control
etc.
See? Equal. I hope my sarcasm is not too overstated.
Mike Mascari