Point taken for the enterprise comparison. The reason for having the
embedded database is to hide the complexity for installing, using, and
configuration of the database from the user of the application. You don't
want a scaled version of the database.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Caduto" <tony_caduto@amsoftwaredesign.com>
Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished
> Stephen Ince wrote:
>> Postgres can't be embedded or serverless. Firebird has the embedded
>> feature. Most of the databases have this capability (hsqldb,
>> derby,oracle,mysql, firebird, and db2). Derby and hsqldb are the only
>> free embedded databases for commercial use.
>>
>
> A lot of Firebird users have been saying this as well, but the comparison
> if more for Enterprise use.
> Plus if you need a embedded database wouldn't it be better to use one
> built specifically for that purpose? i.e. SQLite for example.
>
> Good call on the name limit, I remember running into that when porting
> something from MS SQL server to Firebird about 4 years ago.
> I will have to check and see if this still applies to version 2.0
>
> Later,
>
> Tony
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
