> > Eh Darryl,
> >
> > The comments about MySQL and it's ref-integrity simply don't
> > make sense at all.
>
> I wasn't trying to make a one-to-one comparison between two features.

I understand that :)

> I was making an analogy. Referential integrity doesn't have anything
> to do with car air conditioners either if you want to take my comments
> literally.
>
> I said the MySQL argument reminded me of the current indexing argurment:
> A feature (case-insensitive indexing, referential integrity) that many
> developers expect to see in a database is missing. Some people try to
> argue that this is actually a good thing. Its a postive, not a minus.

Ref integrity is a "have-to" for any "serious" db engine. That's the point
I was making - you can't have constraints (unique/pk) without
ref-constraints - it simply doesn't make sense. In that way, the MySQL
"explanation" why they haven't got it is simply rubbish.

> I was just trying to point out that this is true or false depending on
> what is important to an individual user. Whether or not a "feature" is
> a good thing is not always an absolute truth. Its can be subjective
> based on viewpoint, expectations, habits picked up from using other
> databases, etc.

While case-sensitive indices are not to everybodies liking, I think there's
a clear distinction between the use of indices (see my prev. post) and
constraints - that's why I thought the comparison was flawed. There is
a reason why case-insensitive indices aren't available (see Helens post).


With regards,

Martijn Tonies
InterBase Workbench - the developer tool for InterBase & Firebird
Firebird Workbench - the developer tool for Firebird
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com

"This is an object-oriented system.
If we change anything, the users object."