Subject Re: [firebird-support] Features implementation request / plans
Author Daniel Rail

At August 23, 2004, 21:51, clementdoss wrote:

> I have just finished importing a 19 Gbytes database to Firebird 1.5
> (over 70 milions records). Yes it's a real world application. And
> yes, all the queries runs in under one second.
> The import process when just fine. It took only 20 minutes to import
> all the records. Server is a AMD XP 2000 with 512Mbytes. And yes,
> only 20 minutes :-).

Maybe if someone would take the time to look at the SQL-2003 standard
in regards to the Managed External Data interface and try to implement
it in Firebird. This would permit anybody to implement their own
plugin to read the file format of their choice. But, with all that is
going on at the moment with the development, I wouldn't expect that to
be implemented until after FB 3.0, unless someone finances the
development or develops it themselves and contributes the code to FB.

Although, the Managed External Data(MED) is part of the SQL-2003
standard, it has not been entered as a feature request.

> Another feature that would be great: Linking Database.
> if we could just link Firebird databases on the same server, for
> example,DatabaseA and DatabaseB. From DatabaseA, I would write
> something like : select * from DatabaseB.Owner.TableName.
> Using joins, writing exists, using views,..., etc . That would be
> great.

This has been a request for quite a while. Personally, I would wait
until FB 3.0 is out and have it implemented in the next version post
FB 3.0. And, here again, if someone finances the development or does
it themselves, it might be done quicker.

> Although I am trying to avoid using it, select count(*) from table,
> should really be improved :-(

Because of the architecture of Firebird, it has to traverse all the
record versions and see if it can be seen and counted for the current
transaction, not just the records themselves.

> Sometimes my customers would like to have an idea of the database
> size, and this beast must run. For now, I just update a table with
> the record count during the update process, and instead of running
> the query, I display the correct field from that database.

As Lester stated, this is the way to go, if you require a fast

Best regards,
Daniel Rail
Senior System Engineer
ACCRA Group Inc. (
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (