On Wed, 01 May 2002 16:05:35 -0400
"Paul Schmidt" <paul@...> wrote:

> Andrew:
>
> 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.....

Well I realy like the organic network types and operators, it makes my
life very simple in some respects.

marc

>
> Paul Schmidt, President
> Tricat Technologies
> paul@...
> www.tricattechnologies.com
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: IBDI@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: IBDI-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: IBDI-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: IBDI-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/IBDI
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>