Subject | Re: [Firebird-general] Firebird and the "zero administration" claim.. |
---|---|
Author | Martijn Tonies |
Post date | 2005-07-01T07:18:19Z |
>I wouldn't call indices "administration" but rather "database design".
> >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 outFor example, the dreaded "transaction log" of MS SQL which needs to
> 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?
be truncated sometimes.
Oracle often needs close monitoring and fiddling around with memory
parameters to keep it running. Careful placement and/or creation of
rollback segments (not in v10) so that everything keeps running smooth
etc etc...
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com