Thread: 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.
-----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:
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/
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
--
Gene Hart
cell: 443-604-2679
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? > 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.
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
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/ > > > > 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 > <mailto: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.
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