| Subject | FW: [ib-support] MySQL vs. Firebird / Interbase |
|---|---|
| Author | Jon-David Schlough |
| Post date | 2002-07-09T01:13:41Z |
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon-David Schlough
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:12 PM
To: 'ibsupport (ib-support@yahoogroups.com)'
Subject: FW: [ib-support] MySQL vs. Firebird / Interbase
<clip>
i recently (beginning of this year) migrated a database for a company
from M$ Access to Firebird. part of the process was actually choosing an
open source rdb. my first inclination was postgreSQL, since it's ACID
and mysql is not - but seeing as how i was a beginning dba (i had only
done client side), the usability was lacking. even more importantly, it
had to run on windows, and using cygwin in a production environment
scared me, so pgsql was out.
we looked at mysql very carefully, tested it, benchmarked it...but like
you said, it lacks some pretty essential rdbms features (triggers, sp,
views to name a few). once i found, installed, and began using Firebird
i was totally "sold". it has a complete feature set, is not an early
version by any means since it's based on borland interbase, the user
community is fantastic (many on this list helped me out, helen taught me
how to ask good questions as well), and it integrates with nearly all
languages on nearly all platforms.
the analogy that someone used when i asked them to compare the two was
that mysql is a jeep, and firebird is a tank. for web applications, one
doesn't always need all the functionality of a full-blown, bullet-proof
ACID compliant rdbms. additionally, experienced programmers often use
mySQL's seamless integration with perl and php to do their transactions,
error handling, etc. programmatically. mysql is very, very fast on the
web as well as very easy to implement and nice to program for (i.e.
DBI). i think this is a big reason why so many have many that have made
the switch to open source rdb have chosen mysql. and, yes, it was open
source rdb of the year or something and there is a lot of talk in geek
circles throughout the world about mysql. if you're an experienced
programmer, then mysql offers tons of flexibility and control, a nice
thing.
firebird has many people using it that are writing standalone complied
apps in Delphi, for obvious reasons [borland integration]. i haven't
heard of nearly as many people using it on the web as use mysql. but i
am using it over the web now with the interbase extensions in php4.1.2
and have found it fast and reliable. the feature-richness of firebird
does not seem to hinder it over the web, letalone over ODBC - i have
data editors working on firebird dbS via M$ Access clients using ODBC
and it works perfectly- performance is nearly as good as when using a
similar client setup on native access tables. i also use php to generate
xml from firebird data over the web as well, works swell.
for my personal site, which i'm in the middle of developing, i'm using
mysql and perl because it seems to be a great way to cultivate my perl
skills, and mysql is supported by my host (sadly, fb is not - does
anyone know of a host that does?) and i obviously don't need the heavy
metal for my link catalog or message board. additionally, i had a
difficult time getting perl talking to firebird (php was a different
story).
so i guess that's my point, as someone wise once told me - sometimes you
need a jeep, sometimes you need a tank- just choose the right tool for
the job. but admittedly, this tank seems to be very fast and nimble as
well. perhaps the answer is that mysql is more widely supported by
hosts-- but i think you're right on making the point that a lot of it
has to do with hype as well.
interested in seeing others opinions on this topic, even though i know
i've seen this thread running a few times this year already.
cheers,
jon-david
From: Jon-David Schlough
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:12 PM
To: 'ibsupport (ib-support@yahoogroups.com)'
Subject: FW: [ib-support] MySQL vs. Firebird / Interbase
<clip>
>So the question is, if all of this is true, why isn'thi!
>Firebird becoming more popular? Is it just a question
>of time or a lack of evangelization?
i recently (beginning of this year) migrated a database for a company
from M$ Access to Firebird. part of the process was actually choosing an
open source rdb. my first inclination was postgreSQL, since it's ACID
and mysql is not - but seeing as how i was a beginning dba (i had only
done client side), the usability was lacking. even more importantly, it
had to run on windows, and using cygwin in a production environment
scared me, so pgsql was out.
we looked at mysql very carefully, tested it, benchmarked it...but like
you said, it lacks some pretty essential rdbms features (triggers, sp,
views to name a few). once i found, installed, and began using Firebird
i was totally "sold". it has a complete feature set, is not an early
version by any means since it's based on borland interbase, the user
community is fantastic (many on this list helped me out, helen taught me
how to ask good questions as well), and it integrates with nearly all
languages on nearly all platforms.
the analogy that someone used when i asked them to compare the two was
that mysql is a jeep, and firebird is a tank. for web applications, one
doesn't always need all the functionality of a full-blown, bullet-proof
ACID compliant rdbms. additionally, experienced programmers often use
mySQL's seamless integration with perl and php to do their transactions,
error handling, etc. programmatically. mysql is very, very fast on the
web as well as very easy to implement and nice to program for (i.e.
DBI). i think this is a big reason why so many have many that have made
the switch to open source rdb have chosen mysql. and, yes, it was open
source rdb of the year or something and there is a lot of talk in geek
circles throughout the world about mysql. if you're an experienced
programmer, then mysql offers tons of flexibility and control, a nice
thing.
firebird has many people using it that are writing standalone complied
apps in Delphi, for obvious reasons [borland integration]. i haven't
heard of nearly as many people using it on the web as use mysql. but i
am using it over the web now with the interbase extensions in php4.1.2
and have found it fast and reliable. the feature-richness of firebird
does not seem to hinder it over the web, letalone over ODBC - i have
data editors working on firebird dbS via M$ Access clients using ODBC
and it works perfectly- performance is nearly as good as when using a
similar client setup on native access tables. i also use php to generate
xml from firebird data over the web as well, works swell.
for my personal site, which i'm in the middle of developing, i'm using
mysql and perl because it seems to be a great way to cultivate my perl
skills, and mysql is supported by my host (sadly, fb is not - does
anyone know of a host that does?) and i obviously don't need the heavy
metal for my link catalog or message board. additionally, i had a
difficult time getting perl talking to firebird (php was a different
story).
so i guess that's my point, as someone wise once told me - sometimes you
need a jeep, sometimes you need a tank- just choose the right tool for
the job. but admittedly, this tank seems to be very fast and nimble as
well. perhaps the answer is that mysql is more widely supported by
hosts-- but i think you're right on making the point that a lot of it
has to do with hype as well.
interested in seeing others opinions on this topic, even though i know
i've seen this thread running a few times this year already.
cheers,
jon-david
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free!
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/TPvn8A/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/67folB/>TM
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>------~->
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>