[DUG] Why InterBase

[Edward Koryagin]

MSSQL doesn't have: 
- BEFORE triggers
- GENERATOR(IB)/SEQUENCE(Oracle)
Locking mechanism is bad (some improvement on 2005)

--- Jeremy Coulter <vss at vss.co.nz> wrote:

> 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: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz
> [mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz] 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: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz
> [mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz]
> 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: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz
> [mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz]
> 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: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz
> [mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz]
> 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. 
=== message truncated ===


Edward Koryagin

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com