Subject | Firebird and the "zero administration" claim.. |
---|---|
Author | cowmix3 |
Post date | 2005-07-01T05:01:22Z |
From time to time I have see people make the claim that Firebird (and
Interbase) requires "zero administration" compared to other databases.
A consultant who just came into the company I am working for is going
off on that claim (I sort of repeated it) saying something like:
"Firebird is not not very scalable and while you might call it
'zero administration' this is not the case. It requires indexes to be
built for optimization, etc"
Now I have been using Interbase/Firebird for so long.. I am really out
of the loop for what other database require for administration besides
creating indexes and backups.. which is all I seem to do with
Firebird. Firebird is pretty much zero administration for me.
So if anyone with experience with Firebird and OTHER databases like
Oracle, DB2 or MSSQL can tell me how Firebird administration is
easier, if it indeed is?
Interbase) requires "zero administration" compared to other databases.
A consultant who just came into the company I am working for is going
off on that claim (I sort of repeated it) saying something like:
"Firebird is not not very scalable and while you might call it
'zero administration' this is not the case. It requires indexes to be
built for optimization, etc"
Now I have been using Interbase/Firebird for so long.. I am really out
of the loop for what other database require for administration besides
creating indexes and backups.. which is all I seem to do with
Firebird. Firebird is pretty much zero administration for me.
So if anyone with experience with Firebird and OTHER databases like
Oracle, DB2 or MSSQL can tell me how Firebird administration is
easier, if it indeed is?