How does Firebird compare to other DB packages ie MySQL, Oracle products, M$ Access, PostgreSQL. Does anyone know of a link so I can check screen shots etc? Yes I know I can Google but someone being able to give the info would be appreciated. TIA -- The Little Helper ======================================================================== Hylton Conacher - Licenced ex-Windows user (apart from Quicken) Registered Linux user # 229959 at http://counter.li.org Currently using SuSE 9.0 Professional with KDE 3.1 ========================================================================
How does Firebird compare to other DB packages ie MySQL, Oracle products, M$ Access, PostgreSQL.
it's supposed to be closer feature-wise to oracle/ms sql server than mysql and pgsql (although mysql and pgsql are both catching up nicely) because it's a descendant of interbase. i just started working on adding support for an app i work on since version 1.5 was released last week.
Does anyone know of a link so I can check screen shots etc? Yes I know I can Google but someone being able to give the info would be appreciated.
um.. screenshots for a database server? the main sites for info about firebird are http://firebirdsql.org and http://ibphoenix.com -- trey
Well, I think this comment can confuse. Basically Postgresql is (was?) a much more feature rich database than MySQL including triggers, a rich sql language and overall a piece of art transaction system that many commercial databases still lack. When compared with Oracle or M$ SQL server on single processors non-clustered machines it's as good or better in many circumstances. I replaced time ago a M$SQL v6 server with Postgresql+cygwin in a J2EE produccion environment 3 years ago and it's still working. On the opposite MySQL started as a light weight sql front-end to Berkley DataBase Library (that is not even a relational library) and its sql syntax has been historically really weak, but since Berkley DB is extremnly fast MySQL has always kept firsts positions in many test when data integrity and advanced features were not important (I have seen MySQL storing video frames from tens IP cammeras in real time using just a normal PC with IDE disks ). MySQL greater popularity was mainly due to the fact that it works on Windows and is easy to install, while Postgresql ran on Windows platforms just with help of Cygwin until recently and was harder to setup. Recently SAP announced its development support for MySQL so thinks could change fast.
it's supposed to be closer feature-wise to oracle/ms sql server than mysql and pgsql (although mysql and pgsql are both catching up nicely) because it's a descendant of interbase.
Well, I think this comment can confuse. Basically Postgresql is (was?) a much more feature rich database than MySQL including triggers, a rich sql language and overall a piece of art transaction system that many commercial databases still lack.
sorry.. i didn't really know the specifics for either mysql or postgresql, aside from postgresql being more feature rich while mysql was speedier and more popular.
Recently SAP announced its development support for MySQL so thinks could change fast.
mysql and sap are working together on maxdb (formerly sapdb) which, is separate from the normal mysql, and more along the lines of firebird (feature rich; was commercial, now opensource). they are taking features from maxdb and putting them into mysql, so it should be getting more of the "high end" features faster.. -- trey
Trey Gruel wrote:
Well, I think this comment can confuse. Basically Postgresql is (was?) a much more feature rich database than MySQL including triggers, a rich sql language and overall a piece of art transaction system that many commercial databases still lack.
sorry..
i didn't really know the specifics for either mysql or postgresql, aside from postgresql being more feature rich while mysql was speedier and more popular.
Recently SAP announced its development support for MySQL so thinks could change fast.
mysql and sap are working together on maxdb (formerly sapdb) which, is separate from the normal mysql, and more along the lines of firebird (feature rich; was commercial, now opensource). they are taking features from maxdb and putting them into mysql, so it should be getting more of the "high end" features faster.. sorry I think is due to all posters who answered my badly posed question.
The reason I asked about the comparisons of the databases against M$ Access is that I have used it to create a database of some 20000 http links and I am looking at moving it toward a linux solution. HOWEVER the winner must have a decent user GUI interface to add records/create forms etc ie something that is close to the look and feel, without the BSOD :), to M$ Access for the storing of large tables and being able to produce reports/forms on a certain portion of the records. Comments please, but do be kind... -- The Little Helper ======================================================================== Hylton Conacher - Licenced ex-Windows user (apart from Quicken) Registered Linux user # 229959 at http://counter.li.org Currently using SuSE 9.0 Professional with KDE 3.1 ========================================================================
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:
sorry I think is due to all posters who answered my badly posed question.
The reason I asked about the comparisons of the databases against M$ Access is that I have used it to create a database of some 20000 http links and I am looking at moving it toward a linux solution. HOWEVER the winner must have a decent user GUI interface to add records/create forms etc ie something that is close to the look and feel, without the BSOD :), to M$ Access for the storing of large tables and being able to produce reports/forms on a certain portion of the records.
Comments please, but do be kind...
well.. none of them come with built in guis, but there are lots of utilities available to manage the database and records. you may want to look at a combination of mysql and open office. this is supposed to be able to act as an access replacement. -- trey
Well, I have worked with Postgresql (v 7.3) and accessing it through the JDBC/ODBC drivers I can work with it just as a normal Access database using OpenOffice. I think M$ Access will be able to access it with no problem using the ODBC driver too. On the other side if you want a more compact solution (no client + ?DBC + Server + network) OpenOffice alone provides for direct DBF support (the old 80's dBase files). DBFs don't really work as a relational database but OpenOffice offers a decent SQL front-end to it. I wrote time ago a little OpenOffice application for facturation using the DBF solution and some "small" StarBasic scripts and after a few years is still working. (the development process is pretty much similar to standard HTML+JavaScript though forms are not send to a server but just process and write data before invoquing a new form -word, spreedsheet or presentation)If you are interested I can mail it. (I was thinking to hang it in SourceForge but I really have not time ...).
The reason I asked about the comparisons of the databases against M$ Access is that I have used it to create a database of some 20000 http links and I am looking at moving it toward a linux solution. HOWEVER the winner must have a decent user GUI interface to add records/create forms etc ie something that is close to the look and feel, without the BSOD :), to M$ Access for the storing of large tables and being able to produce reports/forms on a certain portion of the records.
Comments please, but do be kind... --
participants (3)
-
Enrique Arizón
-
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC)
-
Trey Gruel