"Leyne, Sean" <Sean@...> wrote:

> > I'll consider myself
> > duly slapped around the head and told not to be such a
> > silly boy!!


> It was not my intention to "slap" you but rather to point out
> that was has been done before is being made "redundant" by
> advances in other areas of technology.

Figure of speech - and I did get the point, thanks.

> I will be arguing that both of these features should be dropped
> in FB v3.0, since they have long outlived their
> effectiveness -- there are better solutions available...

And I understand why - there's no point in keeping something
that's been superceded - and keeping "cruft" would go
against the "lean" philosphy of Firebird. I remember reading
somewhere about the Windows 3.1 port being discontinued - long
after 3.1 had "left the building..."


I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that if an
organisation has two departments, i.e. Accounts Payable and
Accounts receivable - AP and AR, both of which have a
humungous main table - say, called AP and AR, that if both
departments are issuing queries simultaneously, why it would
not be a better idea to separate the AP and AR tables onto
separate disks - for a given hardware configuration on a
middling server.



Paul...

> Sean