--- edit ---

oops, I misunderstood the post I was unswering to so I cut the body of my message. I apologize for that.

I've used all three. I found interbase/firebird to be a good database, but not as easy to learn as PostgreSQL (this was back before firebird1.5 came out, I understand it's much easier to interface to now.)

My opinion is that MySQL is the best for content management / full text search stuff, Postgresql is best for huge datasets running on n-way SMP machines with very heavy user load, like a large financial or inventory system with lots of writes going on at the same time as all the other selects, and Interbase is better where you want a nice, reliable, set it and forget it database like MySQL but with real relational integrity and most of the other features db type folks expect in a database. Postgresql requires the greatest amount of administration oversight of the three, but pays you back in spades.

The nicest thing about Interbase is that it does so much while using so little of your memory / CPU that is works well on things like embedded systems, palm computers, or notebooks and such.

I've been playing with a number of PHP frameworks that support MySQL and PostgreSQL, with a view to switching them to using Firebird. I have now had to install both to compare what I have been doing with the originals, and the result is that I have just got fed up with the 'non-standard' aspects of both. PostgreSQL is probably better than MySQL, but neither of them will handle some of the UDF extensions or SP's that I have come to rely on in Firebird.

I am back with Firebird, and the ADOdb PHP library and running quite happily. And the extensions that have been added in PHP5 for Interbase support are even more welcome.

So even though the presure to use MySQL because of the readily available frameworks is quite strong, and things like 'auto increment' seem to be easier, the poor support for a number of other facilities have prevented a change.

Once you start using facilities, the lack of them is more of a problem than a different implementation of other aspects.

Scott, note Firebird have two arhitecturally different builds - SuperServer (one threaded process for all users) and Classic (process per connection). Seems you used Super only. Classic is much more tolerant to heavy load, especially on SMP machines, requiring more RAM for individual cache of the processes. Personaly I use Classic for database about 8Gb size, 650 tables, 850 stored procedures, 1300 triggers and 1300 indices and integrity constraints. 2xXeon933, 1Gb RAM, AMI MegaRaid, 50-100 simultaneous connections, some OLTP, some OLAP. It is ERP-class system used in Bereg Ltd, lagest in Russia paper wholesaler.

Best regards,
Alexander.

At work I have to use DB2 for the stuff we write, SQL Server for some third-party products we bought and MySQL for the open-source programs we've found to be useful. At my previous job we used Sybase and Oracle for the commercial systems that our customers connected to and MySQL for our in-house programs.

They're all good databases and I've written programs that my users have found useful with all of them. But my favorite database for personal use and when I write programs outside of work for other people is Firebird. It's simple to setup, reliable and easy to maintain so I've found it to be a good choice because I write programs for people who don't usually have a computer guru/DBA around. I use Borland's C++ Builder / Kylix as my primary development tools and since Firebird is based on Borland's Interbase, the two products mesh really well (lots of controls and examples).

I've heard a lot of good stuff about Postgresql, but until Firebird lets me down, I don't have a compelling reason to try it. A lot of people I know think the same way. Each has their favorite OS/database/development language combination and are happy with it as long as they're being productive.

The last recorded Firebird 1.0/Interbase database size I've read is more than 200GB and can accomodate a maximum of 32TB. I don't think there's a question of capability and reliability for Firebird when it comes to sufficing most of our needs in the company.

I voted for Firebird. I am using it for deploying an app where the users dont even know what database is involved and are not capable of doing any administration and it is working smoothly at more than 75 locations.

The support on the mailing lists is great. After you write your app you can go to the mailing lists and get a lot of help in tuning it till it is screamingly fast.

Firebird is good, but it's simply not ready for the enterprise, something that MySQL's new MaxDB (aka SAPDb) is. SAP has been used in *very* large enterrpise deployments for years, and it's great.

I'm not sure what you base that statement on. Firebird is indeed "ready" for the enterprise...

Here are a few examples....

http://www.borland.com/interbase/cases/index.html

Keep in mind Interbase (which Firebird has expanded on) has been used in large enterprise deployments for years as well - if this is your main criteria...

"Enterprise" is one of those buzz words that gets bandied about but means different things to different people. Can you give me some hard figures to back your statement up like "Firebird isn't any good for databases over X gigabytes" or "Firebird can't support X number of users well". In other words, what is your definition of "enterprise"? Are you basing your opinion on experience or is your opinion about Firebird just that: an opinion?

Firebird is based on Interbase which has been around for a while and in my opinion, the technology has proved itself to be reliable over the last two decades. I'm not saying that Firebird is a magic bullet that can solve all the world's data problems. Every database has its quirks and the niches where it excels. But I know that both FB/IB are being used successfully in commercial situations.

The reason I bring up these questions is that I've seen threads like this degrade into religous arguments where people start arguing their biases instead of the technical merits of the database. I just wanted to clarify if you're just being very enthusiastic about your favorite database or if in fact you have some concrete reasons that FB isn't that good. Personally I haven't hit its limits yet and would like to know where they are if you have.

(PS - I don't know about the rest of you guys but as a database developer I'm just thrilled that I have so many good free databases to choose from. After years of being forced to develop using Microsoft Access, I could be happy using any database in the list.)

Well said!

GAWD... I feel for you...

FireBird, is very good, exactly.

What is going on with the Firebird votes?

Ah... then why are all these people signing up just to vote then never be seen again?

*
What is going on with the Firebird votes?

Ah... then why are all these people signing up just to vote then never be seen again?

*

Does it really matter. There was no such condition for the poll.
What matters is that none of the participants are doing proxy enteries and that could be true not only for Firebird, but also for MySQL or other databases aswell ....

Even if so many new people are registering here . That means that this forum is getting more recognition (Even if it is because of this survey). And I see that as a good thing.

If you have any reservation about Firebird, please enter the facts and not play the blame game....

Hey Sir Gawain,

I voted for Firebird and have been a member of these forums since 2001. I just don't post a lot. I spend most of my time over at Devshed where I saw a post about this survey: http://forums.devshed.com/t99299/s83...950ee3d9d.html

No sinister conspiracy here to artificially inflate the numbers. I think you will find that Firebird supporters really like the database a lot and are enthusiastic about promoting it. The merits of the database aside, I really like the developers and user community around this product. I've gotten excellent support from them whenever I needed it.

Even if you adjusted the voting to give more weight to people with more posts (after all this is a Members Choice Awards), that fact that so many people would take the time to come over here to vote for Firebird should at least give you an idea how strongly its users want to support it. Hopefully it will get some people to at least evaluate it before choosing a database.

By the way, I noticed your favorite distribution, Slackware, was running away with the Linux distro vote. I think a lot of people would be surprised by that as well. But then Choice Awards aren't meant to be scientific are they?