At 08:41 PM 4/30/2002 +0200, Ralf Grenzing wrote:

> >
> > http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/01/lilly/
> > With few concurrent users, InterBase is fast on simple
> > reads and complex joins, but its performance drops sharply under the stress
> > of multiple queries and numerous concurrent users.

That has never been my experience.

> > Because InterBase uses a
> > nonshared architecture, as user numbers increase, it must parcel data into
> > ever-smaller partitions, diminishing its performance levels.

I don't even know what this means - perhaps its a reference to the classic
architecture, but I don't have a clue why the author thinks that more users
means "smaller partitions" whatever they are.

>Yes this is a very important information if it is correct. As far as I
>know the
>multi generation architecture of InterBase / Firebird is especially fast for
>many readers. There is still this sentence in my mind: "reader never blocks
>writer". So what is the truth out there?

The multi-generational stuff has no affect at all on a read-only system. It
helps a lot in a mixed read/write environment. That's probably why the new
PostgreSQL transaction control is a near-identical clone of InterBase's mga.



Regards,

Ann
www.ibphoenix.com
We have answers.