james_027 wrote:

>I wonder what is the standing of the firebird against other DB like
>Oracle, MS SQL, IBM DB2, My SQL, P. SQL.
>

I guess it matters a lot what you're looking for.

>I all I can say is that Firebird is better than MS SQL becase I have
>use MS SQL before. In terms of speed, and ease of use, and
>maintenance. Firebird is too good of MS SQL.
>

Nice to hear.

>In terms of SQL features
>I think MS SQL lead this one. MS SQL has a lot of feature which could
>be very useful although they are not SQL Standard. (correct me on
>this one if Iam wrong Iam not very familiar with all the SQL reserve
>word for Firebird). Though we can use UDF, but I think using UDF
>could drag the speed performance down.
>

Actually not much. The udf's are shared libraries - dlls - and once
loaded they are effectively part of the engine. There's a bit more
parameter checking around calls to a UDF, but that's barely measurable.

>Searching in the web for articles about DBMS. I
>usually find Oracle, MS SQL, and MySQL competing each other. I
>seldom heard Firebird in commercial or enterprise community.
>
>So I wonder what is the standing of Firebird.
>
>

We don't have great visibility in the database press, that's for sure.
Interestingly enough, we've had several mentions in articles that
include MySQL because the management there tells writers to include us.
Open Source has some real benefits.

Regards,


Ann