> 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.

all you need is a 3 tier interface and you can have server side multi-db
queries
Alan