On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:26:54 +1100, Alan McDonald wrote:

>
>> Insanity. And will broke the requisite of having a
>> simulation per database, and just one enciclopedic
>> database. So the customer will not be happy at all.
>>
>> It's a requisite that MSSQL can cope. If a FIrebird
>> implementation have a chance to happen, it's only
>> after having the server side multi-db queries implemented.
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:31:07 +1100, Alan McDonald wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This is really my #1 on the wishlist....
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:18:38 +1100, Helen Borrie wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >all you need to do is get over this need to have separate DBs (often a
>> >leftover habit of desktop database environments) - just
>> normalise your data
>> >and put it all together... if they're on the same machine they
>> should be in
>> >the same file....
>> >Alan
>
>yes - there are real constraints to the idea of one monolithic database.
>There are also people who are not famliar with the benefits either.

For OUR system is absolute insanity go to Firebird now (or before
a FB version have server side multi-db queries). We gained A LOT
with that design in terms of maintenance and ease of use.