| Subject | Re: Things that bother me a lot in Firebird SQL |
|---|---|
| Author | plinehan |
| Post date | 2009-03-26T10:42:50Z |
In Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com, marius adrian popa <mapopa@...>
wrote:
Another very bothering issue is the UDF or lack of them.
There are many open source UDF for Firebird with common
extensions, however Firebird does not seem to implement
them as built in methods or supply their own basic UDF
with the most used/needed functions, so I don't find it
a good way to work. It's not that Firebird should have
"everything" inside, but common tools should arrive
by default with the database, at least in my
opinion.
===================================
I would disagree here - one of the things I like is that
fact that FB is small/lean. By all means encourage the
distribution of UDF librarires, but I would oppose more
code/clutter/cruft/rubbish (whatever you want to call it)
being included by default.
Keep the engine small and lean would be my suggestion.
As an aside, the one thing that bothers me greatly about
Firebird is the lack of the ability to place data - i.e.
put tables or groups of them (tablespaces?) on different
disks.
Some sort of wait interface "a la" Oracle would be good.
I think that in order for FB to rise above the other
open source db offerings, it has to have a distinguishing
feature - that IMHO, should be the instrumentation.
Paul...
wrote:
> http://idkn.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/=======___Quote____===============
> things-that-bother-me-a-lot-in-firebird-sql/
Another very bothering issue is the UDF or lack of them.
There are many open source UDF for Firebird with common
extensions, however Firebird does not seem to implement
them as built in methods or supply their own basic UDF
with the most used/needed functions, so I don't find it
a good way to work. It's not that Firebird should have
"everything" inside, but common tools should arrive
by default with the database, at least in my
opinion.
===================================
I would disagree here - one of the things I like is that
fact that FB is small/lean. By all means encourage the
distribution of UDF librarires, but I would oppose more
code/clutter/cruft/rubbish (whatever you want to call it)
being included by default.
Keep the engine small and lean would be my suggestion.
As an aside, the one thing that bothers me greatly about
Firebird is the lack of the ability to place data - i.e.
put tables or groups of them (tablespaces?) on different
disks.
Some sort of wait interface "a la" Oracle would be good.
I think that in order for FB to rise above the other
open source db offerings, it has to have a distinguishing
feature - that IMHO, should be the instrumentation.
Paul...