PostgreSQL/FireBird

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/01/07 21:31, RPK wrote:

How is FireBird rated when compared with PostgreSQL?

Rated?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFwrSGS9HxQb37XmcRAj+lAJ9uFM+hNm+ink5SeOaaNRjCuASMaACgiBeE
PmhLjdXNwlPKRHHYpGuK+c4=
=vKjR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2/1/07, RPK <rohitprakash123@indiatimes.com> wrote:

How is FireBird rated when compared with PostgreSQL?

I don't know how it is rated, but honestly I looked at Firebird and it is
way too "quirky" and I could never get it to compile embedded. The
documentation is very very poor for that project when it comes to the
embedded model, if you ask me. Also, Firebird has odd license which I think
may limit your ability to commercially embed it without paying licensing --
not sure about that -- it certainly isn't as simple as a BSD license.

For embedded solutions I ended up looking at SQLite, which seems to work
well enough.

--
Chad
http://www.postgresqlforums.com/

firebird is a 7.3 and postgresql is a 9.7

On 2/1/07, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/01/07 21:31, RPK wrote:

How is FireBird rated when compared with PostgreSQL?

Rated?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFwrSGS9HxQb37XmcRAj+lAJ9uFM+hNm+ink5SeOaaNRjCuASMaACgiBeE
PmhLjdXNwlPKRHHYpGuK+c4=
=vKjR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
Gene Hart
cell: 443-604-2679

On Feb 2, 2007, at 04:48 , Ron Johnson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/01/07 21:31, RPK wrote:

How is FireBird rated when compared with PostgreSQL?

Rated?

Clearly, Firebird is a 2.0 and PostgreSQL is an easy 8.2.

Alexander.

RPK wrote:

How is FireBird rated when compared with PostgreSQL?

Firebird is a good db. But it has its spaces. Its is the little
brother of PG.

It has two modes: classic (spawn per connection, small caching) and
superServer (one program w/threads and lots of caching). superserver
does not run well on SMP. If you need SMP run classic.

The best part is the maintenance. Its very simple to setup and run and
requires no maintenance. I'd say for medium size its great, but for
huge, go PG.

Firebird does not span disks well (you can have multiple files, but
cannot tell what's in each file), no clustering, and poor replication
(3rd party only).

So, really, it depends on your needs.

-Andy

RPK wrote:

How is FireBird rated when compared with PostgreSQL?

I used to be a big time user of Firebird, but then I discovered
PostgreSQL and have never looked back.
Firebird has only a few built in functions even the simple ones are
missing. To get the built in
functionality of PostgreSQL's built in functions, you have to use UDFs
compiled in C,C++ or Delphi/Kylix/Free Pascal.
Many times these UDFs are unstable and can crash the whole server.

Firebird also uses a single file for the database that must be
referenced like this:
192.168.23.45:c:\program files\data\mydatabase.fdb
There is no transaction log, no way to do log shipping etc.
This is nice for a embedded system, but not for a robust enterprise
class database.
They do have the ability to set alias for the connection path, but it's
a manual setup process in the conf file.

Firebird as of 2.x still does not have temp tables and it is limited to
one stored proc language.

If need a embedded database Firebird is a good choice, however if you
want a serious database that can compete
with Oracle or M$ SQL server then look no further than PostgreSQL :-)

--
Tony Caduto
AM Software Design
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com
Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql
Your best bet for Postgresql Administration

FireBird has a different target audience than PostgreSQL, which is why
it's not compared to PostgreSQL as often as MySQL is.

FireBird is a direct descendant of Borland InterBase 6. Consequently,
much like Postgres inherited a lot of Ingres's weirdness (most of which
has since been weeded out or superceeded with standard SQL compliance),
FireBird is still very much InterBase dialect-compliant. This is also
why it still uses a modified Mozilla Public License. I know they've
achieved ANSI SQL-92 compliance, but I don't know how fully compliant
beyond that they are. PostgreSQL is mostly working on SQL-03 compliance
AFAICT. Both use MVCC.

Interbase was also primarily used for single instance and embedded
applications, so it's not intended to scale the same way PostgreSQL is.

Firebird's design foci are very small memory footprint, ANSI SQL-92
complaince, multiple dialects that support aging systems, and very low
administrative requirements. It lack features and scalability compares
to PG, but does what it does very well.

PostgreSQL's design foci are features and robustness. It's designed to
compete with Oracle, DB2, MS SQL, and other top-end enterprise
databases. It has a much larger memory footprint and is much more
complicated to administer compared to FB, but is much more configurable
and customizable.

Bottom line: PostgreSQL is more mature because it's several years
older. Firebird is intended for different applications.

--
Brandon Aiken
CS/IT Systems Engineer

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of RPK
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:32 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL/FireBird

How is FireBird rated when compared with PostgreSQL?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/PostgreSQL-FireBird-tf3158857.html#a8761237
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

--------------------------------------------------------------------
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
Statements made in this e-mail may or may not reflect the views and
opinions of Wineman Technology, Inc. or its employees.

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain legally privileged,
confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail
message from your computer.

Borland simply chose a modified MPL to release their InterBase 6 under.
They have since release InterBase 6 under a commercial license, and have
also released InterBase 7 under a commercial license. MPL is a fairly
common license. Sun's CDDL is a modified MPL, for example. The MPL is
somewhere between a BSD license and the GPL in terms of what you can do
with it. Unlike BSD, all code changes must stay under the MPL. Unlike
the GPL, MPL code can be combined with proprietary files. MySQL's
license is a lot more complicated than the MPL.

The FSF says the MPL is not compatible with the GPL, but, well, the FSF
generally finds *all* non-GPL licenses incompatible with the GPL (BSD,
MPL, Apache, etc.). The only truly GPL-compatible license I know of is
LGPL (and there have been arguments about that). That's the problem
with the GPL. You're not agreeing to open source your code as much as
you're agreeing to abide by the FSF's political beliefs. Political
lock-in for developers in lieu of vendor lock-in for end-users.

Compared to SQLite, Firebird has many more features. Firebird *can*
function as a network server and runs as a separate process instead of a
C library that gets compiled in your binary. If you want multiple apps
to access the same data or you want to use ODBC, Firebird can do that
without the kitchen sink approach of PostgreSQL.

Compared to JetSQL - which I assume is what Access and Exchange use -
Firebird is cross-platform. I've never used it, but I've also never
been impressed with the performance of anything that has used JetSQL
(Exchange especially).

--

Brandon Aiken

CS/IT Systems Engineer

________________________________

From: Justin Dearing [mailto:zippy1981@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 6:29 PM
To: Brandon Aiken
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL/FireBird

On 2/5/07, Brandon Aiken <BAiken@winemantech.com> wrote:

FireBird is a direct descendant of Borland InterBase 6. Consequently,
much like Postgres inherited a lot of Ingres's weirdness (most of which
has since been weeded out or superceeded with standard SQL compliance),
FireBird is still very much InterBase dialect-compliant. This is also
why it still uses a modified Mozilla Public License. I know they've
achieved ANSI SQL-92 compliance, but I don't know how fully compliant
beyond that they are. PostgreSQL is mostly working on SQL-03 compliance
AFAICT. Both use MVCC.

What does the MPL have to do with Borland InterBase descendance? Borland
could have chosen any license they wished. Quite frankly I'm quite
ignorant about the MPLs terms so please enlighten me.

Interbase was also primarily used for single instance and
embedded
applications, so it's not intended to scale the same way
PostgreSQL is.

So I guess one should ask how it scales to SQLite and JetSQL, on the
appropiate lists of course.

Firebird's design foci are very small memory footprint, ANSI
SQL-92
complaince, multiple dialects that support aging systems, and
very low
administrative requirements. It lack features and scalability
compares
to PG, but does what it does very well.

Bottom line: PostgreSQL is more mature because it's several
years
older. Firebird is intended for different applications.

If FireBird is descended from Ingres, aren't they both the same age?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
Statements made in this e-mail may or may not reflect the views and
opinions of Wineman Technology, Inc. or its employees.

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain legally privileged,
confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail
message from your computer.

The FSF says the MPL is not compatible with the GPL, but, well, the FSF
generally finds **all** non-GPL licenses incompatible with the GPL (BSD,
MPL, Apache, etc.). The only truly GPL-compatible license I know of is
LGPL (and there have been arguments about that). That�s the problem
with the GPL. You�re not agreeing to open source your code as much as
you�re agreeing to abide by the FSF�s political beliefs. Political
lock-in for developers in lieu of vendor lock-in for end-users.

Quite political stuff in a technical posting from somebody apparently
disliking mixing politics and open source, eh?

It's been said a million times by BSD advocats: put one line of code
under GPL and you instantly become a willingless slave of Richard
Stallmans hoards of children-eating communists.

You don't seem to have the slightest idea of how little power the FSF
even has over project initially developed by themselves (gcc etc), let
alone stuff like the linux kernel.

But you still eternally repeat the "one license to bind them all"
conspiracy theory.

Maybe it's time to move to some other lecture. How about "The
Silmarillion", it's quite good as well.

Compared to SQLite, Firebird has many more features. Firebird **can**
function as a network server and runs as a separate process instead of a
C library that gets compiled in your binary. If you want multiple apps
to access the same data or you want to use ODBC, Firebird can do that
without the kitchen sink approach of PostgreSQL.

SQLite also has support for ODBC:

http://www.ch-werner.de/sqliteodbc/

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:19, Tim Tassonis wrote:

The FSF says the MPL is not compatible with the GPL, but, well, the FSF
generally finds **all** non-GPL licenses incompatible with the GPL (BSD,
MPL, Apache, etc.). The only truly GPL-compatible license I know of is
LGPL (and there have been arguments about that). That’s the problem
with the GPL. You’re not agreeing to open source your code as much as
you’re agreeing to abide by the FSF’s political beliefs. Political
lock-in for developers in lieu of vendor lock-in for end-users.

Quite political stuff in a technical posting from somebody apparently
disliking mixing politics and open source, eh?

It's been said a million times by BSD advocats: put one line of code
under GPL and you instantly become a willingless slave of Richard
Stallmans hoards of children-eating communists.

That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that they're more socialists at
heart.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/06/07 10:59, Scott Marlowe wrote:

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:19, Tim Tassonis wrote:

[snip]

It's been said a million times by BSD advocats: put one line of code
under GPL and you instantly become a willingless slave of Richard
Stallmans hoards of children-eating communists.

That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that they're more socialists at
heart.

With all their talk about "community this" and "community that",
what else could they be but communists?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFyMH3S9HxQb37XmcRAogNAKDgAaUurihuRAV5OWeAQzjK7IQsrwCeLwg6
Dqfx9RmGRl1UMFHBrXGzyIE=
=Hakk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 02/06/07 10:59, Scott Marlowe wrote:

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:19, Tim Tassonis wrote:

[snip]

It's been said a million times by BSD advocats: put one line of code
under GPL and you instantly become a willingless slave of Richard
Stallmans hoards of children-eating communists.

That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that they're more socialists at
heart.

With all their talk about "community this" and "community that",
what else could they be but communists?

1) As far as I know this should be a technical discussion. I believe
there are many other forums about politics.

2) I live in a country that was ruled by communist party for more than
40 years, so I guess a I know a lot of things about that, and that's
probably the reason why I'm so careful saying someone is a communist.
I disagree with R. Stallman in many cases but that does not mean he's
a communist.

Tomas

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 11:59, Ron Johnson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/06/07 10:59, Scott Marlowe wrote:

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:19, Tim Tassonis wrote:

[snip]

It's been said a million times by BSD advocats: put one line of code
under GPL and you instantly become a willingless slave of Richard
Stallmans hoards of children-eating communists.

That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that they're more socialists at
heart.

With all their talk about "community this" and "community that",
what else could they be but communists?

I think you missed my joke there...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/06/07 14:51, Scott Marlowe wrote:

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 11:59, Ron Johnson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/06/07 10:59, Scott Marlowe wrote:

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:19, Tim Tassonis wrote:

[snip]

It's been said a million times by BSD advocats: put one line of code
under GPL and you instantly become a willingless slave of Richard
Stallmans hoards of children-eating communists.

That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that they're more socialists at
heart.

With all their talk about "community this" and "community that",
what else could they be but communists?

I think you missed my joke there...

I thought what you said was funny. Maybe my sense of humor is off?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFyOwDS9HxQb37XmcRAr85AKCb5Hy6YEcTd4nE7o/8UgyHmRPP3ACfVo4y
H4brUt/9sIXj3ExA0ujG8PA=
=BdX3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

With all their talk about "community this" and "community that",
what else could they be but communists?

I think you missed my joke there...

Yeah, Ron Johnson wrote me about that already. Sorry for that, I'm
probably too touchy when it comes to marking someone as a communist,
especially in the area of open source, and I have missed the crank.

Tomas