[DUG] Why InterBase

[Richard Vowles]

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. I
know of customers who write screeds of stored procs just to try and get
SQL Server to perform with lots of hand coded optimisations to
specifically to get around the query optimiser. IB is most certainly not
alone in this. I mean, otherwise why would you have sites like this?
http://www.sql-server-performance.com

> >> It requires no DBA

> Neither does MSSQL or MSDE in the sizes you are talking about, and
certainly not when its a back end to an > application (where the data
structures are tested by the app developer)

Well, we have quite a few customers running back-end databases using
MSDE and StarTeam. The concept of not requiring someone in the
organisation who is a dedicated MSSQL person fills them with horror. I
remember one customer who said to the new IT operations staff at
Auckland City Council where they had an app running InterBase that over
a 2 year period they had never had a crash or needed a system recovery.
The op guy (who only had experience with SQL Server) accused him of
downright lying. 

I suspect you have done a lot of work to mitigate these problems in
MSDE/SQL Server, but I'm sure I could be wrong. What do you do or do you
in fact do nothing?

> >> Reliable

> Well I've had one failure in MSDE is five years and that was because I
didn't apply a service pack...

This is a test that the IB guys used to do with customers when Borland
actually made an attempt to sell IB (such as to Boeing and the US Army -
both of which they succeeded in doing). 1) Have an application actively
updating the database 2) pull the plug 3) put the power back on and
start it up. How long does SQL Server take to start? IB has no restart
time - it is up and ready to go immediately. SQL server spends quite a
bit of time stuffing about with re-do logs and so forth. That is the
first test of reliability. There are others but as you have mentioned
above, you have no problems with this in MSDE/SQL Server - but I am not
sure if you do anything to mitigate it.

> Having used both IB & MSSQL my choice would be PostgreSQL..

Have you used Postgres? I used it once and wasn't so impressed from an
operations standpoint (backup and restore seemed unnecessarily weird
operations). I haven't used it in development.

I'm now happy to have this discussion when I wouldn't have bothered
before. InterBase is a core product of DevCo going forward so I need to
know what are its selling points and what aren't. And I intend to have
an InterBase partner programme that rocks.

InterBase and Firebird are different products now - didn't they re-write
Firebird and fluff around with it for a few years? I mean they have been
trying to put out Firebird 2 for years now haven't they? I'm not saying
it is bad, I just don't know anything about it.

Richard