LPM: RE: dbms

Matt Cashner sungo at brocksplace.com
Wed Jan 26 13:41:30 CST 2000

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 ken.rietz at asbury.edu wrote:

> 1. I can understand wanting to get out of postgresql, but what do
> you mean by "this project really doesn't call for it"? Do you want
> less than a flatfile, four/five fields database? How about just writing
> a file with hashes and reading back from it?

> 2. If you want more machine and database independence, look carefully
> at the DBI module, with appropriately-used DBD's to handle the dependent
> parts. (I thought you were already doing that, so this puzzles me.) You
> should be able to read out of one database and write straight to another.
> My suggestion (I'm sure seconded by Rich) would be MySQL for just about
> any DB work you need.

we're trying to see if we can get out of using a non-perl database but
mainatain machine independence.  we are currently using DBI to interface
with pgsql which is nifty and fine. yes, if i had my way about it, we'd be
using mysql. but our database programmer thinks otherwise. (she may be
leaving us shortly.) anyway... is there some strange reason DBMs are so
machine dependent? can this be overcome?

Matt Cashner
 sungo at earthling.net

"It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black."

More information about the Lexington-pm mailing list