Subject Re: Firebird v SQLServer Debate
Author Svein Erling
--- In, "Martijn Tonies" wrote:
> > Sorry - put that incorrectly. If you say a database can get huge
> > v.s. saying AT&T uses it for every DB transaction in the
> > organisation thats quite a stamp on the "Firebird CV". I just want
> > to know if there are any large organisations using it. (I am on
> >the FB side - just need some ammo)
> Cancer Registry Norway. It holds records for every occurence of
> Cancer in Norway since, ehm, quite some years ago.

Sure, we are pretty complete since 1953, but we're not that big. Even
though we are 'the homeland of the Bamsemums' (I caught one less than
an hour ago), there's less than five million people living here and
not all of us have developed cancer. The only thing we can verify, is
that Firebird has no problems with 10-20 concurrent users connected to
a database of 1 or 2 Gb (short of whenever we fire a few queries with
a lousy plan). The limits of Firebird by far exceeds our requirements.

The closest I ever get to pushing Firebird, is when we have a research
project for which I need to select controls 'randomly'. E.g. if you
have a few thousand potential controls for a case and have to
ascertain that each of them have the same chance of being selected,
then that can take a little bit of time. Multiply that by the number
of cases (controls have to be individually matched to their case), and
it may at worst take some hours before things finishes.