Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 The kind

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

> > > 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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

> --- 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, >

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

Cc: Tony Caduto; Greg Smith; 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-

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

Sent: 27/08/07, 17:02:21 Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 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 ar

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

From: "Tony Caduto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: 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 data

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

> --- 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

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 =

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 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 have

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 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. I recently ported a schema from postgres to firebir

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

> --- 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 menti

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 assimi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 partic

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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-threade

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 (n

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

"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 architectu

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 - bu

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 b

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 sy

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 t

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 go

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 than

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

-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-BACK

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

-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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 stor

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 t

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

--- 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 func

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

-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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 broadcast)-

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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. Obviousl

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 broadcast)

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished

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 set