MySQL on my sites - but I've not tried any others, just not needed to!

Well I use postgresql and sqlite for small projects, etc, and mysql on my server upstairs for my site and bigger projects.

I will let you off nicely....

I said "LibreOffice Base and Calc cover my database needs"

That is all....

Do you import all of your data into libreoffice, or do you actually create your databases in libreoffice?

I create the tables, queries, forms and reports first and then import the data, A lot of the imported data comes from spreadsheets I manually added data to, but want to do more that what I could with Calc.

I got that, but my point was:

1/ you're still using a database with LibreOffice. Like with Access, Base just hides the db engine. So saying LibreOffice covers your db needs is akin to saying phpMyAdmin covers your db needs; or any other db front end for that matter.

2/ and that Calc is out of scope because if you needed a database, then you wouldn't use a spreadsheet. Clearly you're not inexperienced on databases as you've stated you've used them before - so the only reason you'd have for not wanting to use a db would be because you don't need a db. Thus it cannot cover your db needs

First you tell me that LibreOffice Base is not a database
Now you are telling me I am still using a database;
LOL; phpMyAdmin, wouldn't even remotely meet my database needs.

Do you know what a database is?

A database is an organized collection of data that can be manipulated to produce a desired result.

I use a Calc spreadsheet to do exactly that. I use Base tables, queries, forms and reports to exactly that. Yes I could use MySQL to that too but why, when Base and Calc meet my database needs.

You are quite correct in that I am "not inexperienced on databases". I designed my first database back in 1982.

Hi

MySQL for me

Yes, that's right. Base is not a database - Base is a front end. You're still using a database when you use Base but the program itself is not a DBMS.

I really hope that's a joke

Yes, like yourself I've used them for years - both professionally as an Oracle DBA and recreationally for personal projects. So I've had exposure of everything from flat text files through to enterprise solutions.

Which is why I'm fully aware that there is a difference between the data, the management system and dumb front ends that many people use to interact with the DBMS.

phpMyAdmin and Base are equivalent of VNC. So your point is like arguing that a VNC / RDP sessions to a remote computer are actually running locally (eg in a virtual machine) just because the remote software and data is there locally to view - completely ignoring the fact that it's just images being streamed via TCP/IP from remote server.

Or another example is arguing that Firefox is a webserver because you can see web content on it when it's actually just displaying the content that a remote server as collated and served.

Base and phpMyAdmin are nothing more than platforms to inspect your data via the DBMS - they're not databases (in any sense of the term) themselves.

Yes, technically a database is the data itself. Which would mean that your data held on Calc is the database and not Calc itself. So either way, you're still wrong.

Plus given this poll is about SQL-based DBMS, i'd have thought you'd apply the same context to the definition as LQ have. If you want to argue that spreadsheets are your favourite No-SQL methods for managing databases, then please do so in the No-SQL poll rather than here.

Again, Base is just a front end. It's not actually doing any of what you described aside forwarding your SQL instructions to an underlying RDBMS (eg Base can hook into MySQL).

Also, it's ironic that you state that MySQL could meet your needs (if you were inclined) yet phpMyAdmin cannot when the database management "part" of phpMyAdmin is MySQL. This is exactly what I was on about when I keep making the distinction between a front end to a database and the database itself. And, with the greatest of respect, I think this is where you are getting yourself confused when referring to Base as a database.

Impressive stuff, but as stated above you need to be aware of the distinction between a database and the interface (which in many cases are just "dumb" tools).

Just dealing with MySQL

That "phpMyAdmin, wouldn't even remotely meet my database needs.". Nope, not a joke. It does not come close to meeting my needs. It a management tool.

This is silly. That applies to Sybase, MySQL, Oracle as well. I really tried to not call you wrong and I will take the high road on that.

You started this. I simply made a statement, let me quote it again.
You felt obligated to try and educate me in the error of my ways. There is no error in my ways or my understanding of databases and the systems that manage them.

You seem to take some sort of exception that Base and Calc cover my database needs. They do! That is that.

Well that statement tells me a lot. There is only one confused soul here, it is not me.

So you can tell the different then, yet you repeatedly mistake Base as being something other than the same.

In fact their own website verifies what Ive been saying the whole time: "Base is a full-featured desktop database front end"
So now are you going to argue that the developers of Base don't even know what they're talking about?

Exactly my point. You argued that definition and thus I'm demonstrating the implications of your statement. If you want to refer to the collection of data then the application is completely out of scope. If you want to refer to the database management system, then Base and Calc are out of scope as neither are DBMSs. So either way, Calc and Base are out of scope.

I'm not wrong though and have given examples to back up why. If you can prove otherwise then I'd gratefully receive it.

"You started it" <-- how very mature

I was simply stating that Calc and Base are out of scope as neither are DBMS (as proven with the links above), let alone SQL-based ones (which is the entire point of this poll). This isn't a discussion about any and every application we use for data organisation and correlation. It's specific to SQL-driven DBMS. Nothing more.

Very constructive. Now care to explain which part of that quote you disagreed with rather than posting a generalised retort? Thus far you haven't given one piece of evidence to back up your claims where as I've given a number of examples as well as references to the developers own product page.

Also I'm sorry you feel attacked - I'm really not out to troll. You made a statement that was factually inaccurate and I (stupidly) corrected you. Granted I was being a touch pedantic, however if and when I make the same errors I appreciate the same response. The unfortunate thing is we're half a dozen posts along and you've still not substantiated your claims. So rather than turning this into a slagging match (which I really cannot be bothered with), please reference your points.

@LauMars, This is my last post on this subject. That link you so gratefully provided can also serve as my reference. Let me finish your quote for you.
Now lets go back to my first post you seem to have a problem with:
Have a nice database day.

Well yeah, I never said that you couldn't do any of that stuff in there. I just said it's a front end to a RDBMS rather than a R/DBMS itself. Even with the full length of the quote you added, it clearly enforces my point. (In fact it categorically states that).

I really don't know why you can't grasp this concept.

PostgreSQL, when using an RDBMS.