| Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Firdbird 2.0 vs the World |
|---|---|
| Author | Ann W. Harrison |
| Post date | 2006-12-28T16:53Z |
rvbyron wrote:
do and really can be done only by groups that include
experts in each database - something that the open source
world hasn't found the time or energy to do.
There was a recent thread on the support list comparing
Firebird to Postgres.
is better in some cases and worse in others. Postgres is
very extensible and has lots of built-in features for GIS
data. MySQL allows you to copy tables between databases
(feature or bug?) and has several different storage engines
for different purposes and lots of interesting non-standard
features. Firebird has better support for character sets
and collations than either of the others. Firebird has an
embedded configuration. Postgres doesn't, and MySQL hasn't
built one for its 5.0 release.
Firebird and Postgres are free for all uses. MySQL requires
a paid license for commercial redistribution. If you're
thinking of packaging and selling an application, Firebird
probably fights back less than the others because the database
is a single file rather than a directory tree and the
embedded configuration is self-contained.
Postgres is also good here. MySQL tends to be quirkier.
platform, as are interfaces like JDBC and OLE DB. Performance
is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I've seen benchmarks
that show that Firebird beats the others, and benchmarks where
it doesn't. Here's one set from SQLite...
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=SpeedComparison
Best,
Ann
>As you point out, legitimate comparisons are very hard to
> I have seen some comparisons of Firebird to other open source
> databases, however, the list is not very extensive. Further,
> most of the comparisons are not referencing Firebird 2.0, but
> an earlier version of Firebird.
do and really can be done only by groups that include
experts in each database - something that the open source
world hasn't found the time or energy to do.
There was a recent thread on the support list comparing
Firebird to Postgres.
> I am hoping that someone couldNone of the three is better than the others in general - each
> point me in the direction of something that would tell me:
>
> * Why is Firebird 2.0 better than MySQL or Postgres?
is better in some cases and worse in others. Postgres is
very extensible and has lots of built-in features for GIS
data. MySQL allows you to copy tables between databases
(feature or bug?) and has several different storage engines
for different purposes and lots of interesting non-standard
features. Firebird has better support for character sets
and collations than either of the others. Firebird has an
embedded configuration. Postgres doesn't, and MySQL hasn't
built one for its 5.0 release.
Firebird and Postgres are free for all uses. MySQL requires
a paid license for commercial redistribution. If you're
thinking of packaging and selling an application, Firebird
probably fights back less than the others because the database
is a single file rather than a directory tree and the
embedded configuration is self-contained.
> * Feature per feature, how does Firebird 2.0 stack up?Pretty well in standard compliance and feature consistency.
Postgres is also good here. MySQL tends to be quirkier.
> * Are there comparisons showing Administrative, Programmatic,No, and several of the best administration tools are cross
> and Performance between the databases (including Firebird
> 2.0)?
platform, as are interfaces like JDBC and OLE DB. Performance
is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I've seen benchmarks
that show that Firebird beats the others, and benchmarks where
it doesn't. Here's one set from SQLite...
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=SpeedComparison
>A few success stories would help too.
> An article from one or more of you who are knowledgeable in
> the subject could really help out the adoption of FB 2.0.
Best,
Ann