I used IB for about 6-7 months after going from
MSSQL 7(this is like 6 years
ago now), and HATED that IB didn’t have a nice GUI
interface. I didn’t like
this whole "Domains" thing for variables, although I
did see the sense in it
after a while and did use them, and REALLY hated
having to use some other
DLL to get any decent functions to use when doing
Stored Procs.
When I left that job, after 6mths cos I hated the
pace, and got my current
role which I have had for 6years now, I went back to
MSSQL, and now MSSQL
2005 is out, I REALLY like it !
I guess it’s the old story of horses for courses. We
do a LOT with stored
procs (well not so much me these days) and we are
ready to start getting in
MSSQL 2k5 soon as we can.
With my after work business, I have been using
Access which has served me
well even when the clients DBs have got huge, it
still runs well, but once
again, its down t how you design the DB and how well
you use keys etc, AND
as I learnt very early on when using access backin
the VB3 days, ALWAYS do a
night compact and repair and you will be fine.
But, we are needing to move to a proper DB server
solution very soon. My gut
instinct is to go with MSDE, but Firebird seems
attractive for its
cost...thats if its still free, but it worries me
that there is not a lot of
non borland type people to support it, where as
there are a lot of people
who can administer MSSQL.
So I Am still rolling these things around in my
head...sigh
Anyway, that’s my 2c worth.
Jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kyley Harris
Sent: 31 May 2006 18:55
To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
Subject: RE: [DUG] Why InterBase
Well. I have been using interbase since version 4 on
linux, and recently
firebird. I only just migrated and made the decision
to use MSSQL server for
new products a month ago. IB will handle millions of
records with ease. I've
never seen what I'd call a slow query with IB, so it
depends on how you
write SQL I guess.
These are my reasons, and I am certainly not
advocating that I moved from
firebird/interbase because they were bad.
the main reason I like interbase(meaning FB or IB)
is because of its tiny
foot print, ease of installation, and speed. My
testing so far has found
that FB is faster than MSSQL in raw inserts, updates
and deletes.
(this is only in my testing in a certain
environment, so I cant claim that
as you scale no of users etc that FB will maintain
that advantage) My
testing is with less than 5 concurrent executions
against the database. I
have also never ever had database corruption in
FB/IB in all the years I
have used it and I have never needed DBA's to do
anything.
Now. Why did I change, even though MSSQL seems to be
slower. Ease of
development, and customer support.
>From my development perspective. MSSQL (and I could
as easily say
oracle
probably ) has 128char field & table names, which
means I can generally
store my object with the same names and fields. IB
only has 32 chars.
Which is an old legacy terrible thing that is only a
tiny bit better than
8char DBF files.
Stored Procedure Language is more powerful. In MSSQL
you can return
different rowed data based on conditions. When using
the database to store
classed data with polymorphing this is great. It
means that When I ask for a
TClient from a stored procedure passing it a primary
key, it can work out if
the key is for a TClient, or a TBetterClient, and
return the correct result
set to be processed. IB/FB cant do that, which makes
for more overhead. I've
always found writing server side in IB a pain in the
ass.
So far as I have seen. You can do a lot more with
SQL language in MSSQL,
Oracle etc.
>From a client perspective, it is easier to backup
MSSQL in line with
server backups, so I can blame them if things are
not backed up.
Still. IB makes for a good database when selling a
cheap product, like <
$1000 per seat. Well Firebird does, I don't know
what the licenses if IB
are.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of James Sugrue
Sent: Wednesday, 31 May 2006 6:20 p.m.
To: 'NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List'
Subject: RE: [DUG] Why InterBase
Interbase seems ok - haven't used it that much so
can't comment on
performance. It seems to be a good small footprint
db. My question is how
does it scale? How does it handle large databases
with millions of records?
How good are the tools provided for DBA's?
I have used MSSQL since v5.5 in many sized apps,
from 2 or 3 users to 100's
of users with millions of records. I have never had
a problem with MSSQL
infact it's pretty much install and forget.
I'm not bagging Interbase, but saying that it is far
better than MSSQL seems
to be a stretch. Glad to be proven wrong though....
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Richard Vowles
Sent: Wednesday, 31 May 2006 4:20 p.m.
To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
Subject: [DUG] Why InterBase
I'm leaving this here instead of going off-topic
because I'd like people
other than Neven (who is a confirmed IB disliker :-)
and me (a confirmed
SQL-Server, I mean what a dumb name, disliker) may
have useful information.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Neven MacEwan
Sent: Wednesday, 31 May 2006 12:02 p.m.
To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
Subject: Re: [DUG] Migration from IBX to Interbase
to SQL-Server 2005
Seriously, because it is a far better embedded,
reliable database
than
SQL Server or MSDE.
I think youd have an issue proving this, enough
people have bagged its
query optimiser on this list alone > as for
Where does the query optimiser come into "embedded,
reliable"? Both products
have problems with query optimisation - you just
hear about them more on
here as more people have used InterBase than SQL
Server.
