Talk:Comparison of relational database management systems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:50, 9 February 2012

Revision as of 12:51, 9 February 2012

Line 21:

:Anyway, InnoDB is not ACID compliant, the problem is *some* engines listed for MySQL are said to be ACID compliant (like they said InnoDB is ...) and I have no information to confirm that. Sure thing is, the word should be spread that InnoDB is not 'C' compliant, including on this page . // This brings the question of how this list was compiled and how many others aren't actually ACID compliant.[[User:Yourbane|Yourbane]] ([[User talk:Yourbane|talk]]) 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

:: How many are or are not strictly ACID compliant is an excellent question, but also a lot of work to figure out. The bold course would seem to change them all to "unknown" then change them to something that can be backed up with a reference, and keep out the changes that aren't checkable. ACID is a hot buzzword (and subject to ill-informed fanboiism in certain quarters) but all the same important enough to get it correct. Also, I support the notion that this is not a place for loose interpretations. ACID is much less useful if you only get it if you contort yourself. The only approach that makes having it useful is to make it strictly the default then optionally allow for carefully loosening the requirements for speed; the SQL standard supports this. Doing it the other way just doesn't make sense, unless you believe in the awesome power of "your mileage may vary". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.86.176.163|84.86.176.163]] ([[User talk:84.86.176.163|talk]]) 12:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Someone needs to add information about FileMaker Pro. ==