> > > Is there a document somewhere Firebird vs MySQL
> >
> > Start a new thread on this group and I can give you some info.
> >
> > I've never used MySQL in production, but do have a fair
> > idea 'bout it's features and such...
>
> My idea was that such document should be helpful in our goal - to
> proof that FB is "more..." and "more..." and... from MySQL - one of
> the top competitors of FB. They (MySQL) also make some big noise about
> new version and "enterprise capabilities". So - such whitepaper
> "Firebird vs. MySQL" can be helpful in one set of whitepapers about
> Firebird.

Yes well, at some levels, MySQL IS more and more ...

For example, they have A LOT of build in functions. I know, Firebird
"doesn't want to clutter the engine" and has "external function libraries"
(so does MySQL), but hey, out of the box, you have more functionality
and some functions return info 'bout the connection, so it cannot be done
with Firebird external functions.

MySQL has a cluster-ready solution.

MySQL Stored Procedure and Triggers will use the SQL 2003 standard
language.

MySQL has auto-inc fields.

MySQL has full-text-index functionality.

MySQL comes with an out-of-the-box replication mechanism.

MySQL has commands that show you all databases, the new v5 will
(eventually) implement the standard INFORMATION_SCHEMA views.

MySQL has better security (including DDL privileges, network related
grants etc).

MySQL has different table-types for different functionality. The latest
addition is a "CSV" table type to read/write CSV files.

MySQL also includes LOAD tools, that can read CSV or fixed
length ASCII.

MySQL also has a loyal following that doesn't know any better.



All in all, MySQL is no longer a small-time database engine.


Now, do I like MySQL? Hard to say ... it also has quite some annoying
things. But so does Firebird.

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com