I apologize for my inability to "read between the lines". If you read enough of my posts you won't take everything I say so seriously either.

True.

hehe.. ok my friend.

Re: bulshit.. Firebird is good
 

Vigjam, Firebird should not win but take place which it merits. If more people will say any another candidate is better - it will mean this candidate is more used, or it's community is more informed about survey or more consolidated around favourite project. Survey shows namely this, not which DBMS is better. Note most persons here speaks _for_ something, not _against_ something. It is good tune. And I surely can say there is area where MySQL beats all - simple web applications with no care about data integrity and server-side busyness rules. What about juggling with nice words like Enterprise - I'm just smiling :) We are technicians and should argue with something which can be measured ;)

Best regards,
Alexander V.Nevsky, Firebird Foundation full member.

Firebird has a lot to offer
 

I'm very pleased (and surprised) to see that Firebird is doing so well in this poll.

In preparing to start my own business, I looked at both PostgreSQL and MySQL. There were strong points in favour of each, but also some not inconsiderable negative points.

It seems to me that Firebird has 98% of the good points of PostgreSQL (but has more native binaries than PostgreSQL), and Firebird has all the good points of MySQL (but is truly free and has far more of the features one expects from a relational database).

I had used Oracle extensively in my previous occupation. When I started up my own business I got DB2 bundled with other server software. But I chose not to use it, because I had already been looking at Firebird for quite some time.

After looking at the feature list of DB2, there was only one feature that Firebird did not have built-in and for free(replication - a separate commercial product is available).

But the complexities of the DB2 install were enough to put me off even looking at it any further. Firebird can do all the things I need (I wrote my own data replication app).

The documentation for Firebird 1.5 is coming along (one can use the old Interbase 6 documentation set, which is very comprehensive.) And the support for Firebird on the Yahoo Groups forum is very impressive.

Those who have not yet come to appreciate what Firebird has to offer should see how many platforms it is available for, install it, get the documentation, and see what benefits they can get from it. Maybe PostgreSQL or MySQL is perfect for your needs - but Firebird has plenty to offer.

Re: Re: bulshit.. Firebird is good
 

Yes.. i agree with you. I agree that others can do a better job on different things.
I ment that i think Firebird will win anyway.
And i also think that Firebird will be placed with it's merits.
I also belive that Firebird will explode in populartity soon. Because the guys have done a wonderful job on it.

I totaly agree with you on this quote.

Best regards

hmmmm.... MySQL lovers read this..... http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html


I had a few laughs reading it..... now if someone asks me about MySQL I'll just say "well it's funny :D ".... or maybe like one of my friends says...."MySQL is the best flat-text system there is!" :p

I agree with the guy that said MySQL is a toy...

Firebird rulez!

It would be hypocrite that MySQL as a flat-text dbms will remain as it is just win in the speed arena. Surely, they're heading to where other RDBMS (FB, PostGre, Oracle, etc.) now. But the time span to reach this level will still be a big factor while the others keep on moving...

In case you didn't notice I said it was a flat-text dbms as in a joke.... of course MySQL is more than that...

In version 5.0 MySQL is suppose to have stored procedures and all that but it's like they are putting these "add-ons" on top of something that was built not having them in mind

I just fail to understand the popularity of MySQL... its not free, and it has very few of the features that database developers really need.

Even before Firebird came around, PostgreSQL had most of the features that MySQL is lacking, and is open-source/free.

How did firebird get that many votes? :)

I've never even heard of it before ;)


PostgreSQL all the way! :D


Cheers,
Tink

p.s.: I seriously consider deleting my LQ cookies
so I can vote for PostgreSQL a 100 times ;)

Well, questions like that tend to say something about those who ask them rather than about Firebird :D

Interbase (i.e. the beginnings of Firebird) is pretty ancient when compared to Postgres. When Postgres project was started in 1986, Interbase had already been in use in large enterprises for at about 5 years.

I thought interbase is a reasonably new
borland product :} ... mea culpa.

How come that whoever owns the
name didn't sue borland? Or did they
just buy it?


Cheers,
Tink

It's a long story.
Ashton Tate ( remember them - dBase ) bought Interbase as a client/server replacement for dBase, but before anything happened - Borland bought Ashton Tate.
Borland did not seem to know that they had Interbase for some time, and by the time they found out, they had other irons in the fire.
Back in 1999 they decided that there was no future for Interbase, so they announced they were dropping it.
There was such an uprore from a large base of users that they agreed to Open Source it, but before completing that move the accountants decided that closing to was a big mistake and so they announced Interbase7.
BUT by this time there was already a strong base of users working with the Open Source copy - who had fixed a lot of bugs, and so Firebird was established (Since it could not now be called Interbase :) ) . It rose from the ashes - hence the phoenix site that supported it.
Some of the original Interbase development team are still involved with Firebird today.
Firebird 1.5 is due out any day now and adds even more SQL standard features.

I didn't intend to sound rough. I apologize if I did.

A side note:
I was "brougth up" on Postgres. The University where I studied computer science could no longer afford outrageous license fees for Oracle, so they decided Postgres would be used instead, using internal support and expertise. Later in my work I started using Delphi which bundled Interbase with the package. I found Interbase easier to use and (at the time) a little ahead of Postgress in SQL compliance.

One wretched thing with Firebird is that if you try it once or twice it's hard to switch back.
You've been warned :D

>>
How did firebird get that many votes? :)

I've never even heard of it before ;)
<<


Tink,

Check out the statistics on Sourceforge: 1,141,730 downloads since the project began...

It is not that surprising that many Linux newbies had not heard of Firebird - mostly the publicity around open-source dbs goes to MySQL and PostgreSQL. The SAP db also suffers from a lack of publicity (well, maybe until MySQL got involved financially...).

Firebird users had to actually approach LinuxQuestions to request that Firebird be included in this poll. Until Linux related-sites start to become more proactive (especially sites designed to help newbies), who knows how many great open-source products are being exploited by a band of knowledgeable afficionados?

The amazing thing about Firebird is not just its proven history, its scalability (from being an embedded db to serving gigabytes of data), or its sql compliance... but also the range of (open source and commercial) tools available for it (http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?a=...ntrib_download)

There are a range of articles by Martin Rennhackkcamp (from 1996) in DBMS Online that compare some of the more advanced features of Interbase with other RDBMS (e.g. domains - http://www.dbmsmag.com/9608d17.html; triggers - http://www.dbmsmag.com/9605d17.html)

Given the lengthy history of Interbase, the high SQL compliance and advanced features of Interbase since the early 90s, the platforms available for Firebird, the truly free nature of Firebird, the number of tools available...
it is no surprise that there is a huge base of Firebird users who are keen to raise the profile of the benefits of this database so that even knowledgeable people such as yourself have yet another choice in open-source databases :-)

If someone is interested, here is result of similar survey made in Russia last year

http://www.sql.ru/poll/

sorry if post of this kind is qualified as spam at this forum ;)

Thanks guys for the patience and lots of
info ... I'll give it a shot :}



Cheers,
Tink

Do you really think,that it is good idea? :D

Is it realy that difficult to put a decent database behind online polls and only log a subscriber once ;)

I think this is one of the reasons that polls are simple not taken seriously.

firebird installation
 

Hello firebird users ....


May I please direct you to this thread and
ask for help? :}

I want to give Firebird a go but can't get
through with the installation....



Cheers,
Tink

I am an Oracle 9i DBA, but my personal choice is PostgreSQL.

MySql
 

I do not know if MySql is the best, but for me it is: simple, fast and stupidity proof.

Re: MySql
 

Check!
Check!
And the buzzer sounds...

Sorry, but MySQL is anything but stupidity or idiot proof.

I like it, and in ansi sql mode it's pretty good, but there are some bothersome quirks which can bite you if you aren't looking out for them, which means it isn't stupidity proof.

Insert the number 8192029039302939 into an int4 field, and MySQL silently inserts 2147483647 for you. Insert the date "green eggs and ham" and it silently inserts '0000-00-00'. Both of these are fixed in the ANSI SQL compliance mode (ask yourself, should a database have ANSI SQL compliance as an option that is off by default?) But not the biggest one, the fact that when you tell MySQL to create a table of type innodb in a database that doesn't support them, it silently creates said table with MyISAM format, and allows you to declare foreign key relations that simply don't exist, since they're on the wrong type of table, all with no errors? And there's no way to change this behaviour, the ansi switch doesn't affect it.

MySQL is, however, fast and simple, and for some tasks, it's not just a good choice but the best choice. Idiot proof takes a database like Interbase / Firebird. Postgresql certainly isn't idiot proof, but it's closer than MySQL.

Re: Re: MySql
 

If firebird is idiot proof I should apply for
a job as a door-stopper :}

I must be sub-IHC standard ;) since I fail
to even install it.


Cheers,
Tink

Re: Re: Re: MySql
 

Sorry, didn't mean to impugn your abilities there, Tinkster. What I meant is that for the typical user Ibase is idiot proof, and needs no maintenance and won't much up your data.

Getting it running is a pain, unless you can get it pre-installed via RPMs or something in your OS.

It has gotten easier with the 1.5 release, have you tried that?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tinkster
If firebird is idiot proof I should apply for
a job as a door-stopper :}

I must be sub-IHC standard since I fail
to even install it.
---------------------------------------------------------

The installation options stated in the firebird documentation is legal. It's just that the OS you're using is not LSB compliant (Slackware). I was able to install it without even reading the manual aside from the fact that I did it just the first time I heard of firebird (just for curiousity) ;)

Often Overlooked, Excellent DB
 

Interbase is a superb database engine and Firebird the open-source version of it.

I don't do much Dbase managment I have only tried MySQL classes and it is what I will vote for till I have tested the others ...

Ta ;)

Installation problems???
 

It seems weird that people are having trouble installing Firebird.

`cd /usr/ports/databases/firebird`
`make install`

And you're done.
Ports tree takes care of downloading source, patching, configuring, compiling, and installing for you.

Literally. Two commands.
Don't reinvent the wheel if you don't have to...

Nothing beats mySQL imo. :D

Re: Re: MySql
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott Marlowe
Sorry, but MySQL is anything but stupidity or idiot proof.

I like it, and in ansi sql mode it's pretty good, but there are some bothersome quirks which can bite you if you aren't looking out for them, which means it isn't stupidity proof.
Insert the number 8192029039302939 into an int4 field, and MySQL silently inserts 2147483647 for you.

Rubbish mySQL is not that stupid.

When I try your example I get 8192029039302939 is not a valid integer value for field 'test'
also have you never heard of default values for fields?

There is no way I can accept MySQL is that bad.

Firebird!

For those who haven't tried it yet...

Simple, stable, fast, fully featured.
The best in my opinion.

I started out with MySQL. It was brilliant!
Fast, handled great scads of data.

Then I needed Ref. Integ., Triggers, Stored Procedures, and admin-free running.
Sure, I knew it was coming to MySQL eventually, but do you use a quad-turbo Daewoo to pull a six-berth caravan?
No. You use something that was designed for the job, from the ground up.

MySQL has it's place. It should stay there, as it does it very well.

Need more features for your app? Use the right tool for the job. Use Firebird.

Re: Re: Re: MySql
 

Here's an exact cut and paste from MySQL 3.23.41 on my computer as I sit in front of it right now:

mysql> create table test (i1 int4);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)

mysql> insert into test values (8192029039302939);
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)

mysql> select * from test;
+------------+
| i1 |
+------------+
| 2147483647 |
+------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

Maybe you've got the --ansi switch turned on on yours, but by default, 99% of all MySQL databases are running without it, and turning it on breaks a fair number of applications that use it.

Maybe you should do some research next time before calling rubbish.

and yes, I've heard of default values. What's your point? (besides the one under your hat mayhaps.)

Ok more research next time. I did try it out and it would not let me do the update.

So I have more to learn, apologies then.

What version MySQL are you running, by the way? And do you have the ansi compliance mode turned on? If so, then it will fail on insert like you said it did.

I have 3.23.55-14 i586 as mysql version distribution SuSE 8.2

What is the best way to find out if I am running ANSI compliant switch?

ps awwx|grep mysql

and look for the mysqld started by /bin/sh or something like it with the startup switches. It would be nice to know that Suse installs MySQL with the ansi switch turned on, although MANY applications break when you do so.

Can you quote identifiers with " instead of ` ?

I.e.:

create table "Bubba" (info int);

as opposed to

create table `Bubba` (info int);

The first is ANSI SQL standard, the second is native MySQL operation without the ansi switch turned on.

create database testing;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.47 sec)

create table "spb2" (info int);
ERROR 1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax near '"spb2" (info int)' at line 1

create table spb2 (info int);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)

ps awwx|grep mysql
1330 ? S 0:00 /bin/sh /usr/bin/safe_mysqld --user=mysql --pid-file= /var/lib/mysql/mysqld.pid --socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock --datadir=/var/lib/ mysql
1376 ? S 0:00 [mysqld]
1382 ? S 0:00 [mysqld]
1383 ? S 0:00 [mysqld]

I see no reference to ANSI at all...........

Well, you are running a later version in the 3.xx.yy series than me, I'm on a two year old version. I hadn't figured the behaviour had changed regarding large numbers being inserted and getting converted to max/min(int).

I'll have to download the latest 3.xx.yy rpms and see how it works.

Still, there are other bothersome things I'm not sure will be fixed.

The alter table change column type thing is (was??? don't know yet :)) very disconcerting. When you did something like:

create table test (dt text);
(insert a few thousand dates)
alter table change (forget the syntax, change the type of dt to date)

if you had dates it couldn't convert, it would make them 0000-00-00 and your old dates were just gone, no errors, nothing. In my opinion, I'd rather the database scream at me that there are invalid dates and error out, at least needing some kind of "oh go ahead and mung it" switch to be flipped in the SQL to allow the coercion.

Now, with ansi turned on, that problem would go away, since ansi mode doesn't allow 0000-00-00 as a date. But there are others I wanna see if they've fixed in later 3.xx.yy releases. I doubt I'll upgrade to 4.x any time soon, I'm not sure it's as stable as 3.xx.yy seems to be.

Interesting what you say about dates. I am a newbie to MySQL having used Paradox (personally) and Oracle (at work).

So I am sort of learning the whole time with Linux also, it is all new to me after years of Dos, DR-Dos then windows.

FB
 

Firebird. it works, you not! ;)

Hmmm... I see MySQL is finally catchingup with Firebird.

Thouhg I voted for Firebird, it was still hard to believe that MYSQL was so far behind it

I think the debate that "MY Database is better than yours" is a never ending story. And it was not the right place to start it anyway.

This is a poll-for-popularity. and we should have had left it that way....

While Firebird has covered a million-download mark which is quite remarkable for this comparitively new database, MySQL is far ahead of it in this regard for many years.

I think both have advantages and disadvantages.

MYSQL is an excellent choice for Web-Based applications and Dynamic-data driven websites. As it performs very nice in that case. And for simple queries it is faster than almost any database for sure.

Firebird is more suitable for Client-Server applications as it is simply designed in that fasion. With strong and robust procedural language, refrential integrity, triggers it can out-perform MySQL in a 2-tier and 3-tier client server application.

I think it is not appropriate to compare MySQL with likes of Firebird and DB/2, etc.

The poll should be devided into two separate polls actually.

i.e
a) Database for Web
b) Database for Client-Server applications.

And the results might surprise you !!!


You will see that for Web, MySQL is lot more popular.
Postgress and Firebird will have better scores for Client-Server applications.

MySQL all the way

... only because that's all I know :)

>> Please consider adding sqlite

Please ...

Looks like it's going to be an extremely close award this year too!!! :)

Looking forward to the results of all the Chioce awards.

Mysql rulez :)

We are in the process of picking an open source database to replace MS SQL Server. I spent at least a week comparing the following:

MS SQL Server (that's where we were coming from)
PostgreSQL
Firebird
SAP DB
MySQL

I set up a spreadsheet of 39 criteria, based on my experience with five other RDBMSs. I gave each RDBMS a rating of 1-5 on each item, which gave a total score. Some of the criteria were non-negotiable for us. For instance, we absolutely must have Unicode support. That disqualified MySQL. We also wanted something that would run on Windows, Linux, and Mac.

Scores:
------------------------------
PostgreSQL: 168
Firebird: 141
MS SQL Server: 133
SAP DB: 116
MySQL: 44

(Note to tauseef: You are right. We are using the database for client-server. MySQL came in low because it simply does not have the abilities we need. For instance, it has table locks only. I gave up researching it after I found out it lacked Unicode support.)

We started out using PostgreSQL. However, we changed a couple months later, and we are now pursuing using Firebird. One reason is because Firebird has been working on Windows for many years. PostgreSQL just started. Another is that Firebird's popularity has been growing in the past year, which means it won't die a slow death. Also, the dialect is also closer to SQL Server than PostgreSQL.

My vote went with Firebird, coincidentally putting it at the 400 mark.

As to signing up to vote, I plead guilty. But in my defense, I didn't know this site was here until yesterday. As a Linux newbie, I'm sure I'll be back.

Hi
How can I see final results?

The results will be posted after the polls are closed.

--jeremy