Re: Firebird and PostgreSQL at the DB Corral. - Mailing list pgsql-general

shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com says...


> > Following up on another thread, here is a comparison between FB and PG
> > from an FB'ers POV. BTW, FB is the love-child of Open-Source-Interbase.

> I would love to have this comparison in a table form and posted on web. Let FB
> guys chip in and make it more correct..


That would be nice.


> > The architectures of the databases are fundamentally the same MVCC for
> > you, MGA for us Firebirders (Multi Generational Architecture).

> And postgresql has vacuum and FB has automatic sweeps, correct?


The sweeps can be disabled (i.e. set to 0, for manual - mostly late at
night or something similar), the default is 20000 - 20K.


> > Ease of use (particularly on Windows). FB is about as easy as installing
> > Minesweeper.

> Native Postgresql on windows is practially non-exsitent so if you want to
> compare ease of use, let's talk unix where postgresql is fairly easy to use..


IB/FB is a breeze to use on Unix also - it was developed originally on
Unix machines - it's been around since 1981.



> >>Legendary reliability and stability

> > Ditto for FB. Although there are reports of corruption from time to
> > time, it is generally because the "server" was actually some end-user's
> > PC.

> Can that be termed as data corruption due to fault in database server is rare.


Yes. Most issues that crop up on the Interbase and/or Firebird groups
appear to me to be of the "Someone tripped over the power lead on my
machine, and now the db is corrupt" variety - these people also for some
reason appear to have "forced writes" turned off - I think that's like
fsync to you guys.


> we should not attribute data corruption due to hardware failure to database
> software. Postgresql ranks very high on that regard. Except for WAL corruption
> bug fixed in 7.3.3, there has been no such bug till date(and even for long time)
> IIRC..


The one way in which I see FB as falling down is not having a WAL. It
should (and I believe that this is being worked on) - apparently it used
to have one, but it got broken (while IB was still commerical I hasten
to add).

Still, I will just say this, if you have a decent server (i.e. running
something other than Wintendo 95 or 98) and look after things like UPS
and regular backups, your problems will be *_minimal_*. FB is very much
designed to be low maintainance.


> >>Extensible

> > Ditto for FB. If you want to extend the code, though, you have to give
> > those changes back to the community - the licence is more GPL than BSD.

> Postgresql is extensible from an applications POV. Data types, operators,
> functions, languages, rules, domains and checks etc.

> How much of it FB supports?


OK, I have to be honest here. Some of the terminology used here can
confuse me. Sometimes people use different words for the same thing, and
vice versa.

What do you mean exactly by extensible data types? And extensible
operators - I'm pretty sure that FB doesn't have those.

Functions (known in FB as UDF's (User Defined Functions), yes.

Extensible languages? Care to elaborate? FB can use UDF's in any
language - for example if you write a dll (ARrrhh - Windows again) in
any language of your choice, then it can be used by FB.


> > FB supports approx. 10 major platforms - not quite as many as PG, but
> > still enough to be getting on with.

> Practiaclly postgresql supports one platform. Unix..:-) Rest is marketing speak.
> I am not discounting support matrix but I think this is fair to start a database
> comparison.


All I can say is, if you guys can get a nice, easy Windows setup going,
that will be real progress. Whether you or I like it or not, W$oze is an
important platform. I had a project recently where there is your classic
WNT server in the corner - I suggested putting the db on a cheap (2% of
project cost) Linux box - you should have seen the guy's eyes glaze
over.. it was a non-runner.

For the time being, you have to able to offer a *_serious_* Windows
solution.


This is one area where FB/IB wins hands down.


> Windows port in works. That will truely be another platform..


I await it impatiently.


> >>ANSI SQL compliant
> > X

> Be careful.. You need to list SQL version as well..


Of course - I think it's entry level 92 at least, with more, plus their
own extensions. From what I've read, FB and PG are about as compliant
with the 99 standard as each other.


> >>Native interfaces for ODBC, JDBC, C, C++, PHP, Perl, TCL, ECPG,
> >>Python, and Ruby

> > X caveat: I think that FB works natively with the vast majority of these
> > and has its own interfaces as well, but not ECPG obviously.

> Does it support writing stored procedures in any of these?..


AFAIK, no. You can write SP's in IB/FB's own language - not too
dissimilar from Oracle's PL/SQL.


> >>Rules

> > ? I don't understand these - can somebody explain exactly what they are?

> This is answered already but I will take another shot. Rules allow you to
> redirect/add to action of an SQL statement. Check
> http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/rules.html


Thanks.


> >>Views
> > X (FB's are updateable to boot!)

> You can do that in postgresql bu postgresql won't do it for you. You have to due
> the legwork..

To be honest, I'm not too familiar with them myself. I'll be reading up
on them in PG.

Hey, the thought's just struck me, that's another area where PG wins
hands down - the availability of literature. There's not a single book
in English about it (though there is in Russian, Japanese, German and I
think Portuguese). This is a real failing, though, I think that there
are two in the pipeline.


> >>Hot stand-by (commercial solutions)
> > ? (not sure what is meant by this)

> Your database machine/service fails and it is automatically switched over to
> another database machine/servie without interruption in application availability..


Shadows? I'm not sure here.


> You didn't cover one thing. The on disk layout. AFAIK, FB uses one database per
> file which makes it hard to support division of data physically.


It's impossible - the server does it for you. Maybe that's part of the
strength *_and_* weakness of IB/FB - it's simplicity.


> Postgresql has  much better disk organisation IMHO..


Sure, but that leads to greater complexity - there's always a quid pro
quo.


> Good to have such comparison. Let's hope to get a compiled version on web for
> masses to see..


That would be good.


Paul...


>   Shridhar


--

plinehan  x__AT__x  yahoo  x__DOT__x  com

C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro

Please do not top-post.