[DUG] Why InterBase

Thu Jun 1 14:16:37 NZST 2006

  Edward

 > - BEFORE triggers

In all triggers the state before and after is available hence the
concept of before and after triggers are irrelevant

 > - GENERATOR(IB)/SEQUENCE(Oracle)

Has identity cols, which I realise are not the same but Generators are
simply a stored proc, so you may have to code them but they can be created

 > Locking mechanism is bad (some improvement on 2005)

Define bad

Neven


Edward Koryagin wrote:
> 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 
> _______________________________________________
> Delphi mailing list
> Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
> http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
> 
> 

-- 
Neven MacEwan (B.E. E&E)
Ph. 09 620 1356 Mob. 027 4749 062

New Address Details
===================
MWK Computer Systems
1 Taumata Rd
Sandringham
Auckland

Ph 620 1356
Fx 620 1336
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: neven.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 164 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://ns3.123.co.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20060601/d8269644/neven.vcf