Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- From: "Martijn Tonies" <m.tonies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:55:40 +0100
"http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?a=ibphoenix&page=ibp_howto6";
"The truth of the matter is, InterBase does not come with a very rich
set of built-in functions. Some common functions that are missing are
An example article about how to create them. The demo project is written
with DELPHI 2! That alone should given you an indication on how old it is.
Interbase <> Firebird.
And BTW really i dont want to start a flamewar, just do a comment. I
think postgres will be great when have multithread support, rigth now
this lack of feature is unaceptable for my daily work.
Apparently they are from a documentation point of view.
Rubbish.
And exactly why do you think PostgreSQL on win32 having threads will be
so great? I can pretty much say for sure you would not notice any
difference in your daily work unless of course you daily work revolves
around using Firebird as a embedded database, which we all know
PostgreSQL does not do nor has any intention of doing.
One misbehaving thread can bring the whole server crashing down, hence
the need for a guardian service on Interbase and Firebird.
Rubbish, internal, but now published documents state very clearly
that InterBase (back then) shouldn't crash. Period. It's a database
server.
The guardian process is a workaround for this and only "required"
on OSses that don't support auto-restart on services, in order to
restart the IB service so that clients can reconnect and continue
working without manual intervention. This goes hand-in-hand with
the whole "embedded"/"dba-less" approach.
The only difference is win32 can't fork a process as fast as it can
spawn a new thread, so a client connecting to a threaded server will
take slightly less time, once connected there is not going to be any
difference in query execution speed. If firebird threads are so great
why was there a big push for a win32 classic version?
SMP support without having to wait for the threaded version to play
catch up. The Firebird < 2.x codebase has multi-threading issues with
regard to SMP, while "classic" doesn't have these issues.
The fact of the matter is threads have some advantages over processes,
but they also have disadvantages. With lots of threads you get context
swap issues.
But better cache usage, to name but one advantage.
Not sure why we are harping about threads anyway in relation to theYES.
comparison. It clearly states on the comparison that Firebird has
threads and PostgreSQL does not with a RED no and Firebird has a green
--
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- From: Tony Caduto
- Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- References:
- PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- From: Tony Caduto
- Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- From: Donald Shimoda
- Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- From: Tony Caduto
- Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- From: Donald Shimoda
- Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- From: Tony Caduto
- PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- Prev by Date: Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- Next by Date: Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- Previous by thread: Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- Next by thread: Re: PostgreSQL and Firebird comparison via digg
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
