On 1 May 2002 at 15:19, csswa wrote:

> --- In IBDI@y..., "Robert Munro" <rjmunro-yahoo@a...> wrote:
> > I know this keeps coming up on this list, but I still can't find a
> good
> > comparison of Postgresql Vs. Firebird/Interbase anywhere on the
> web. I'm not
> > really enough of an expert on databases to come to a fully reasoned
> > decision. Some information I have found after much searching
>
> If anyone wants to see an extremely biased, deceptive, and plain
> nonsense comparison between the two, go here:
>
> http://www.vitavoom.com/postgresql.html
>
> Among the fanciful statements, the author claims that PostgreSQL
> (note, spelling errors are original authors):
>
> ... has a much more sofisticated locking mechanism (MVCC).
> ... has broader subselects support then Interbase.
> ... has a more flexible BLOB fields support.
> ... is more standards-compliant then Interbase.
> ... has more built-in functions then MySQL (or any other open source
> RDBMS). [Andrew here -- yes, the author forgets he is writing the
> 'PostgreSQL vs Interbase' section] ... allows re-using of space
> without needing to "pack" (vacuum) it's internal tables (since version
> 7.2).
>

Actually the one thing you rarely see in any pro-PostgreSQL comparison, is when it
comes to installation, especially if your O/S was bottled by The Evil Empire(tm), it's
absolutely hideous. Another thing is that they have more goofy stuff, where they
can't make their goofy stuff compliant, they change the terminology, so that it
appears to be something else entirely. I remember reading the docs for one
feature, half way through I realised that it was really a goofy way to implement a
stored procedure. If your used to a mainline DB (Oracle, Sybase, MS-SQL, etc)
then some of the stuff is simply going to confuse the heck out of you.

> And the list goes on, becoming more and more bizarre as the author
> reaches farther and farther into the twilight zone for his
> comparisons.
>
> That last one refers to garbage collection, of course. PostgreSQL
> must use some kind of modern-day environmental recycling instead of
> plain old garbage collection. Whatever -- the image of Hoovering out
> the db is a delightful one.
>

Only because they haven't figured out a way to manage the reuse of pages on the
fly, so their new and improved method is one that was introduced in DBase II!

> I've never used PostgreSQL, I know little about it. Prior to this
> article I had a neutral opinion about it -- haven't used it so can't
> comment type of thing. A nonsense article like this one makes me
> wonder, though: why the need to make false 'comparisons'? Got to push
> their support services, I guess.

I have used it, the only advantage it has, is that the included ODBC driver works.....

Paul Schmidt, President
Tricat Technologies
paul@...
www.tricattechnologies.com