@BernieTheBernie said in How to insult Stackoverflow experts:
We do not need transaction (yes, that's true!), so from that point of view there was no need to use InnoDB. And nobody talked about crash resilience when comparing MyISAM and InnoDB...
Crash resilience is actually one of the two primary reasons transactions exist (it's the D in ACID, and also half of A and C). So, by declaring that you don't really need transaction, you have just implied that you don't need crash resilience.
Of course, I understand that this implication is not apparently obvious and often completely missed. Which is somewhat I suppose - but then again, half-assed documentation is rather normal and I would even say that documentation is generally one of the better parts of MySQL.
Also, from my experience: corrupted ISAM is completely normal and if you use any kind of constraints (which is what you did), you are at the mercy of nasal daemons.
Which leads us to...
remember that we have an "I hate Oracle club".
Is there some "I hate mysql club", too?
Because mysql is
Mysql has been bought by Oracle, thus merging those two clubs.
Now if only Oracle bought Lotus Notes too, we could have just one of those forever.