Firebird 2.0 officially launched
-
http://www.firebirdsql.org/[^] After 5 release candidates, Firebird arrives to 2.0. Personally I like very much this DB. :cool: The CPians here, someone uses Firebird? Some testimonial?
Firebird 1.5 had some quirks when used with .NET and never got to the performance I expected. However, the ability to do an xcopy install for desktop apps and it's relatively small size impressed me greatly. For desktop apps it's so much better than SQL Express. (I just downloaded a freebie from Microsoft. It uses SQL Express which a) made the download even huger than it should have been, b) makes it a complete resource hog and c) it's still really slow [I started the program and created a new database. It took over 2 minutes to create it. After exiting, the SQL process was still using 256MB of memory for several minutes until I killed the process.]) I'm definitely going to give Firebird 2.0 a spin. (For desktop .NET apps, VistaDB totally rocks--but I might use Firebird for a C++ app.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
but I could do my business code in .NET so that's allright...
www.dotnetfirebird.org[^] Not excuses now :);)
Jesus is Love! Tell to someone! :badger:
Thank you kindly! I haven't looked at FB in quite a while and to find both a new version and one tailored for .NET in one pass is an early Christmas present. Adding to the kit.
-Bri "The most deadly words for an engineer. 'I have an idea.'"
-
John Cardinal wrote:
MySql has an utterly crap attitude towards commercial usage
I don't find this to be the case.
John Cardinal wrote:
and their tools just sucked
The GUI ones do, I must admit, but not the command line ones and APIs. And just for comparison, the GUI tools suck on Oracle as well. My point is, sometimes not having an EM replacement isn't the best choice to go by when choosing a RDBMS.
John Cardinal wrote:
I'm completely mystified why anyone bothers to use MySql at all.
It's simple. It's called speed. Perhaps that's not important to you, but for a lot of people it is. ;P Also - albeit my opinion - if you have to insult MySQL in an attempt to make Firebird look good, then chances are you really don't know either RDBMS well enough to make independent points on it.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
I was involved in an evaluation a year ago and MySQL did very poorly compared to Firebird. We were all quite surprised at the gap. (Overall, VistaDB 2.0 clobbered all of them for the types of operations our app did where speed was critical.) PS. It may very well be that the nature of app happened to hit the bad spots of MySQL just right. (Their licensing procedure and costs for commercial apps was also unnacceptable--we weren't going to publish our code.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I don't find this to be the case
I do, in fact I documented my experience with them here about a year and a half ago. It was a joke from top to bottom.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It's simple. It's called speed. Perhaps that's not important to you, but for a lot of people it is. Also - albeit my opinion - if you have to insult MySQL in an attempt to make Firebird look good, then chances are you really don't know either RDBMS well enough to make independent points on it.
I'm insulting them for two reasons, their attitude toward commercial software developers and their undeserved hype. I'm calling into question the thinking behind anyone using it over Firebird after giving both a very good test for use with a large commercial application. Maybe it makes sense to use MySql for some sort of linux app that was written around it, I don't really work in that world at all, all I was after was a free open source database server that was an alternative to MS SQL for our customers that couldn't afford the MS SQL. I tested every aspect important to my project of them both. I created a .net data access layer for both to use with my business object framework and hammered them with test data. Since then I've used Firebird for main development and MS SQL occasionally to confirm compatibility and testing, so to say I don't have much experience would not be accurate. FireBird was not only faster, (not an impression, timed with Red Gate ANTS profiler, I take evaluation of components that will go into my commercial software very seriously), easier to setup and manage, but I had far less problems with the sql syntax compatibility to the ANSI standards which meant that I have written almost identical sql code for my DAL to use with MS SQL and Firebird. Beyond that what really sealed the deal was the fact that the firebird project seems to be a truly open source one, run by very professional developers and a very professional community. Firebird has an almost ancient heritage compared to most software stretching all the way back to it's interbase days at Borland, has a nice fast tiny embeddable version that is 100% compatible with the server version that means my app can scale from a single one user scenario to a large enterprise scenario just by copying the database file to a FireBird server. MySql on the other hand (and I must be honest, this was probably a year and a
John Cardinal wrote:
I'm insulting them for two reasons, their attitude toward commercial software developers and their undeserved hype.
MySQL AB or the community? I have a feeling there's a lot of bias floating around with your stance regarding the zealot community more so than anything else.
John Cardinal wrote:
I tested every aspect important to my project of them both. I created a .net data access layer for both to use with my business object framework and hammered them with test data. Since then I've used Firebird for main development and MS SQL occasionally to confirm compatibility and testing, so to say I don't have much experience would not be accurate.
Well, for one, if this was a year and half ago, things change. And, I'm not debating whether or not Firebird is a nice DBMS. I'm saying if all you can do is ridicule MySQL (unfairly I might add, but I'll get to that) to show the merits of Firebird than that's a lousy stance.
John Cardinal wrote:
FireBird was not only faster,
Really, no offense, but for you to lump sum this means either A: your tests are elementary and/or B: your tests are elementary. I mean really, do you realize how many factors go into certain things... like some commands to do particular things faster that standard SQL doesn't allow (SQL Server does this too), different back-end engine types, how you installed MySQL (there's a fair amount of slow/fast options I doubt you know about). I mean really, I'd wager you just don't know MySQL all too well. I don't know Firebird well, but I'm not a fool. There's a lot more variables here you're not addressing because frankly you don't want to.
John Cardinal wrote:
but I had far less problems with the sql syntax compatibility to the ANSI standards
I find MySQL to very compliant (not perfect however). It's syntax isn't as forgiving as SQL Server though. Perhaps Firebird was trying to be more like SQL Server, hell I don't know.
John Cardinal wrote:
how mysql was going to "stick it to microsoft" than with bothering with having a good product.
As it is right now, I see you hating the Linux zealot community more so than MySQL, and I think that's a very unprofessional reason to not choose a DBMS.
Jo
-
I was involved in an evaluation a year ago and MySQL did very poorly compared to Firebird. We were all quite surprised at the gap. (Overall, VistaDB 2.0 clobbered all of them for the types of operations our app did where speed was critical.) PS. It may very well be that the nature of app happened to hit the bad spots of MySQL just right. (Their licensing procedure and costs for commercial apps was also unnacceptable--we weren't going to publish our code.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I was involved in an evaluation a year ago and MySQL did very poorly compared to Firebird.
Well, I'd be curious to know the specifics of it. It's not like I'm married to MySQL, but I do try to be fair. And, these arguments I see on CP are nowhere near convincing to say the least.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I don't find this to be the case
I do, in fact I documented my experience with them here about a year and a half ago. It was a joke from top to bottom.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It's simple. It's called speed. Perhaps that's not important to you, but for a lot of people it is. Also - albeit my opinion - if you have to insult MySQL in an attempt to make Firebird look good, then chances are you really don't know either RDBMS well enough to make independent points on it.
I'm insulting them for two reasons, their attitude toward commercial software developers and their undeserved hype. I'm calling into question the thinking behind anyone using it over Firebird after giving both a very good test for use with a large commercial application. Maybe it makes sense to use MySql for some sort of linux app that was written around it, I don't really work in that world at all, all I was after was a free open source database server that was an alternative to MS SQL for our customers that couldn't afford the MS SQL. I tested every aspect important to my project of them both. I created a .net data access layer for both to use with my business object framework and hammered them with test data. Since then I've used Firebird for main development and MS SQL occasionally to confirm compatibility and testing, so to say I don't have much experience would not be accurate. FireBird was not only faster, (not an impression, timed with Red Gate ANTS profiler, I take evaluation of components that will go into my commercial software very seriously), easier to setup and manage, but I had far less problems with the sql syntax compatibility to the ANSI standards which meant that I have written almost identical sql code for my DAL to use with MS SQL and Firebird. Beyond that what really sealed the deal was the fact that the firebird project seems to be a truly open source one, run by very professional developers and a very professional community. Firebird has an almost ancient heritage compared to most software stretching all the way back to it's interbase days at Borland, has a nice fast tiny embeddable version that is 100% compatible with the server version that means my app can scale from a single one user scenario to a large enterprise scenario just by copying the database file to a FireBird server. MySql on the other hand (and I must be honest, this was probably a year and a
John Cardinal wrote:
has a nice fast tiny embeddable version that is 100% compatible with the server version
Btw, MySQL offers something that's embeddable, but I don't think it's free. Firebird having this free is a really nice feature for the freelancers IMO. I do primarily use MySQL for the web however, so it's not something I'll need. Although, if my needs change and I need to embed it, Firebird will be on my list of DBMSs to look at.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I was involved in an evaluation a year ago and MySQL did very poorly compared to Firebird.
Well, I'd be curious to know the specifics of it. It's not like I'm married to MySQL, but I do try to be fair. And, these arguments I see on CP are nowhere near convincing to say the least.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Well, I'd be curious to know the specifics of it. It's not like I'm married to MySQL, but I do try to be fair. And, these arguments I see on CP are nowhere near convincing to say the least.
Not to get into some argument with you about this but, I half wonder if the experiences by both John & Joe are not related to the Windows Build of MySQL as you indicated in a post your experience with MySQL was on *NIX. It would lead me to believe that the Windows version isn’t as highly optimized as the *NIX version. Not that I care they are databases, shrugs, the small business apps that I tend to write don’t need hyper fast DBMS, just something that works (or at least something I can figure out). For the record I have never really worked with Firebird or MySQL.
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Well, I'd be curious to know the specifics of it. It's not like I'm married to MySQL, but I do try to be fair. And, these arguments I see on CP are nowhere near convincing to say the least.
Not to get into some argument with you about this but, I half wonder if the experiences by both John & Joe are not related to the Windows Build of MySQL as you indicated in a post your experience with MySQL was on *NIX. It would lead me to believe that the Windows version isn’t as highly optimized as the *NIX version. Not that I care they are databases, shrugs, the small business apps that I tend to write don’t need hyper fast DBMS, just something that works (or at least something I can figure out). For the record I have never really worked with Firebird or MySQL.
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
S Douglas wrote:
It would lead me to believe that the Windows version isn’t as highly optimized as the *NIX version.
I do my web development on Windows, including using the Windows version of MySQL. But my stress testing has really only been the web server because that's the production environment. That being said, this is something I haven't looked into, but it does sound like an interesting idea to research.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
S Douglas wrote:
It would lead me to believe that the Windows version isn’t as highly optimized as the *NIX version.
I do my web development on Windows, including using the Windows version of MySQL. But my stress testing has really only been the web server because that's the production environment. That being said, this is something I haven't looked into, but it does sound like an interesting idea to research.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I do my web development on Windows
Out of curiosity, why not move to one environment? Why do the dev work on windows and test / production on *Nix?
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
-
Firebird 1.5 had some quirks when used with .NET and never got to the performance I expected. However, the ability to do an xcopy install for desktop apps and it's relatively small size impressed me greatly. For desktop apps it's so much better than SQL Express. (I just downloaded a freebie from Microsoft. It uses SQL Express which a) made the download even huger than it should have been, b) makes it a complete resource hog and c) it's still really slow [I started the program and created a new database. It took over 2 minutes to create it. After exiting, the SQL process was still using 256MB of memory for several minutes until I killed the process.]) I'm definitely going to give Firebird 2.0 a spin. (For desktop .NET apps, VistaDB totally rocks--but I might use Firebird for a C++ app.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I also use Firebird without problems and using with IBExpert is just as easy as using MS Sql Query Analyzer. And the fact that is freeware and the forums are really alive makes me to vote on Firebird :).
company, work and everything else www.netis.ro
-
Thank you kindly! I haven't looked at FB in quite a while and to find both a new version and one tailored for .NET in one pass is an early Christmas present. Adding to the kit.
-Bri "The most deadly words for an engineer. 'I have an idea.'"
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I do my web development on Windows
Out of curiosity, why not move to one environment? Why do the dev work on windows and test / production on *Nix?
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
S Douglas wrote:
Out of curiosity, why not move to one environment?
The main reason is HomeSite, even being old, is still one of the best damn HTML editors this planet has seen IMO. It's Windows only, so it's just what I've gotten used to over the years.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]