Ann W. Harrison wrote:

>> * Are there comparisons showing Administrative, Programmatic,
>> and Performance between the databases (including Firebird
>> 2.0)?
>>
>
> No, and several of the best administration tools are cross
> 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

Just to add some small observations here (even if the results are good
for Firebird 1.5):

1. Fb 2.0 is ~ 80% faster than Fb 1.5 in TPC benchmarks, as is reported
by the core subproject head (see the running thread in the devel list).
Personally I didn't those tests but in (my) real world applications it
seems that Fb 2.0 is (a little bit...) faster.

2. The firebird.conf used is the default one - a very conservative one
for nowadays computers and misleading for new users. IMHO, is very
indicated to make the Fb defaults accordingly with the amount of RAM
commonly found today in computers. For example:
a. DefaultDbCachePages = 2048 (for SuperServer) means only 32MB if
one has the biggest page size (ie. 16k). A very conservative value IMHO.
This can be raised at 8192 (ie. 128 MB). Personally I have it 10000
b. SortMemBlockSize = 1048576 (ie. 1 MB) According with the amount
of RAM and with the Db sizes today perhaps is better to bump it at
(least) 4 MB. My value: 16777216 (16MB)
c. SortMemUpperLimit = 67108864 (8 MB) Unfortunately this is a
common value between Classic and SuperServer architectures (perhaps it
can be changed, following the model from DefaultDbCachePages where two
defaults exists, one for each architecture) and that's why perhaps we
can raise this only somewhere around of 16 MB (which is a very small
value for SuperServer). My value (I run SuperServer): 268435456 (256 MB)

Any comments?


hth,

m. th.