Christopher Browne wrote:
> threshar@torgo.978.org (Jeff) writes:
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> As I have said elsewhere, Informix is probably a poor database to emulate
> >> since they are effectively an old dead-end fork of the Ingres/Postgres code,
> >> and have already been "mined" for most of the improvements they made.
> >>
> > With informix 7.0 they rewrote the entire thing from the ground up
> > to remove a bunch of limitations and build a multithreaded engine.
> > so it isn't so much an old fork anymore.
>
> No, I think you misunderstand the intent...
>
> The pre-7.0 version was based on Informix's B-Tree libraries, and the
> file structuring actually bears a marked resemblance to that of MySQL
> (that's an observation; neither forcibly a good or a bad thing), where
> there's a data file for the table, and then a bunch of index files,
> named somewhat after the table.
>
> In the 7.0-and-after era, they added in the "old dead-end fork of the
> Ingres/Postgres code" to get the "Universal Data Server."
I think 9.0 was the the Ingres/Postgres code, not 7.X.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
