On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, David Fetter wrote:
-Is the Wiki the right place to build this table at? Large Wiki
tables get very difficult to manage.
They're very easy to manage using things like the Firefox/Mozilla
plugin viewsourcewith
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/394
The kind
the SQL Server 2005 Express download provides software that
is suitable for application embedding or lightweight application
development.
I never developed more then some queries on SQL Server Express or its
different names.
But I had to work with some applications which used the
Harald Armin Massa wrote:
the SQL Server 2005 Express download provides software that
is suitable for application embedding or lightweight application
development.
I never developed more then some queries on SQL Server Express or its
different names.
But I had to work
Postgres can't be embedded or serverless. Firebird has the embedded feature.
Most of the databases have this capability (hsqldb, derby,oracle,mysql,
firebird, and db2). Derby and hsqldb are the only free embedded databases
for commercial use.
I recently ported a schema from postgres to
Stephen Ince wrote:
Postgres can't be embedded or serverless. Firebird has the embedded
feature. Most of the databases have this capability (hsqldb,
derby,oracle,mysql, firebird, and db2). Derby and hsqldb are the only
free embedded databases for commercial use.
A lot of Firebird users
On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:47 , Tony Caduto wrote:
Good call on the name limit, I remember running into that when
porting something from MS SQL server to Firebird about 4 years ago.
Just a quick note: PostgreSQL's identifiers are limited to
NAMEDATALEN - 1 (IIRC), which by default is 64 - 1 =
On 8/27/07, Stephen Ince [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently ported a schema from postgres to firebird and found name size
limitations. Firebird has a limitation on the size of it's column names,
table names, constraint names and index names. I think the size limitation
on firebird is 31
--- Original Message ---
From: Stephen Ince [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tony Caduto [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED],
pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: 27/08/07, 17:02:21
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished
Postgres can't
Stephen Ince wrote on 27.08.2007 18:02:
Derby and hsqldb are the only free embedded databases for commercial use.
Well, there are some more:
H2 Database, OneDollarDB (OpenSource version of DaffodilDB), Berkely DB and
McKoi are free as well (although McKoi seems to be dead).
Then there are a
: Tony Caduto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished
Stephen Ince wrote:
Postgres can't be embedded or serverless. Firebird has the embedded
feature. Most of the databases
vs Firebird feature comparison finished
Postgres can't be embedded or serverless. Firebird has the embedded
feature.
Most of the databases have this capability (hsqldb, derby,oracle,mysql,
firebird, and db2). Derby and hsqldb are the only free embedded databases
for commercial use.
SQL Server
; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison
finished
Dave,
Thx I will take a look. I was trying to port a postgres schema to a
database that had embedded capability. I could not find any
non-commerical
databases that supported triggers
--- Original Message ---
From: Stephen Ince [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27/08/07, 21:30:06
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished
Dave,
Thx I will take a look. I was trying to port a postgres schema
Hi,
Someone mentioned we should put this in the PostgreSQL wiki.
Do you guys think that would be beneficial? If so, I don't mind the
work on the list I have done so far going on the wiki.
It would make it a lot easier to add other DBs to the mix.
Later,
Tony
---(end
Greg Smith wrote:
This is a really good comparision, focusing on features that I think
people understand rather than so much on technical trivia. Someone
else mentioned moving it onto the Wiki. Questions that pop into my head:
-Tony, would be you be comfortable with your work being
--- Original Message ---
From: Tony Caduto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25/08/07, 15:36:15
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished
Hi,
Someone mentioned we should put this in the PostgreSQL wiki.
Do you guys
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I agree with you on the multi-threaded. I think I will add a note
saying the the multi-threaded architecture is only advantageous on
Windows.
And Solaris.
I'm not entirely sure what makes multi-threading be advantageous on a
specific operating system, but I think
Alban Hertroys wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I agree with you on the multi-threaded. I think I will add a note
saying the the multi-threaded architecture is only advantageous on
Windows.
And Solaris.
I'm not entirely sure what makes multi-threading be advantageous on a
specific operating
Dave Page wrote:
Alban Hertroys wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I agree with you on the multi-threaded. I think I will add a note
saying the the multi-threaded architecture is only advantageous on
Windows.
And Solaris.
I'm not entirely sure what makes multi-threading be advantageous on a
Alban Hertroys wrote:
So actually the remark shouldn't be that the multi-threaded
architecture is only advantageous on Windows, but more like the
multi-process architecture is disadvantageous on Windows and hence a
multi-threaded architecture is preferred (on that particular OS).
Yeah - but
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alban Hertroys wrote:
So actually the remark shouldn't be that the multi-threaded
architecture is only advantageous on Windows, but more like the
multi-process architecture is disadvantageous on Windows and hence a
multi-threaded architecture is preferred
On Aug 24, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what makes multi-threading be advantageous on a
specific operating system, but I think FreeBSD should be added to that
list as well... They've been bench marking their threading support
using
multi-threading in MySQL
On 8/24/07, Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alban Hertroys wrote:
So actually the remark shouldn't be that the multi-threaded
architecture is only advantageous on Windows, but more like the
multi-process architecture is disadvantageous on Windows and hence a
multi-threaded
Alexander Staubo wrote on 24.08.2007 23:49:
So actually the remark shouldn't be that the multi-threaded
architecture is only advantageous on Windows, but more like the
multi-process architecture is disadvantageous on Windows and hence a
multi-threaded architecture is preferred (on that
Tony Caduto wrote:
Other than that I would say PG kicks butt.
You're just realising that? :-)
If there is any interest I could also add MySQL 5.0 to the mix as the
third column.
I'd be interested to see that.
Regards, Dave
---(end of
Tony Caduto wrote:
Check it out here:
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com/pg_vs_fb
Couple of corrections Tony:
- You don't necessarily need to stop the postmaster to take a filesystem
backup -
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-BASE-BACKUP.
Obviously
On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:00 AM, Tony Caduto wrote:
Check it out here:
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com/pg_vs_fb
When comparing in the grid the only major advantage FB has is
probably BLOB support.
PG only suppports 1 gb while FB supports 32gb. Bytea is pretty
slow as well when compared to
Dave Page wrote:
Couple of corrections Tony:
- You don't necessarily need to stop the postmaster to take a filesystem
backup -
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-BASE-BACKUP.
Obviously that assumes logs will be replayed during recovery.
- The native
Dave Page wrote:
Tony Caduto wrote:
Other than that I would say PG kicks butt.
You're just realising that? :-)
Ah, I new that around 2004 :-) I just have to convince Delphi users of
that :-)
Later,
Tony
---(end of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony Caduto wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Tony Caduto wrote:
Other than that I would say PG kicks butt.
You're just realising that? :-)
Ah, I new that around 2004 :-) I just have to convince Delphi users of
that :-)
My understanding
--- Tony Caduto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check it out here:
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com/pg_vs_fb
One row that you could elaborate on is:
CHECK CONSTRAINTS support for correlated sub-queries.
PostgreSQL doesn't official support this kink of constraint unless it is rolled
up in a
On 8/23/07, Tony Caduto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check it out here:
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com/pg_vs_fb
If there is any interest I could also add MySQL 5.0 to the mix as the
third column.
If you do, you should really do it as MySQL-isam and MySQL-innodb.
the limitations of each table
If anyone is interested, I could answer the questions for Oracle and
you could add those, too. Be interesting to see a chart like that
(that stays updated after releases) for a large assortment of
databases.
If we add a bunch of different databases, it might be easier to
manipulate if it was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lewis Cunningham wrote:
If anyone is interested, I could answer the questions for Oracle and
you could add those, too. Be interesting to see a chart like that
(that stays updated after releases) for a large assortment of
databases.
If we add a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony Caduto wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Couple of corrections Tony:
- You don't necessarily need to stop the postmaster to take a filesystem
backup -
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-BASE-BACKUP.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Tony Caduto wrote:
If there is any interest I could also add MySQL 5.0 to the mix as the third
column.
As already mentioned, MyISAM and InnoDB should get their own columns.
This is a really good comparision, focusing on features that I think
people understand rather
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 03:30:30PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Tony Caduto wrote:
If there is any interest I could also add MySQL 5.0 to the mix as the
third column.
As already mentioned, MyISAM and InnoDB should get their own columns.
Yes.
This is a really good
Check it out here:
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com/pg_vs_fb
When comparing in the grid the only major advantage FB has is probably
BLOB support.
PG only suppports 1 gb while FB supports 32gb. Bytea is pretty slow as
well when compared to the FB BLOB support.
The other area is Character
38 matches
Mail list logo
