I work on MSSQL. It's troublesome, most of time you have to
put business rules on stored procedures to get better performance -
this leads to a outrageous number of them. Maintain that quantity
of SP is troublesome.
Indexing on FB is much simpler: no need to worry to decide where
to put the clustering index. In MSSQL it is a key decision, on FB
is non-sense.
MSSQL needs monitoring because of the exposure of the locks. FB is
multi-version - so much of the hassles of handling locks is hidden
on the server, just follow a multi-gerational thinking. Not so easy
to explain, but much easier to achieve.
FB is pretty much self-configurated.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 05:01:22 -0000, cowmix3 wrote:

>
>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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Community email addresses:
> Post message: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: Firebird-general-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: Firebird-general-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/Firebird-general
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>