Hi Sven,
> >>I was very disappointed by Interbase/Firebird. It seemed to me like a > >>MS-Access: a database-engine that works on regular files > > > > What gave you that idea? Firebird (and InterBase of course) use > > a at least 1 file per database, but that's all. Can you define > > "regular files"? > > My idea of Firebird is the following: > There a library that can access a file and use it as a database. > > that very much like using the MS-Jet-Engine which is the backend to > MS-Access. Actually, this is "Firebird Embedded". Indeed, a single DLL (with some additional DLLs if you want additional character set support) that acts like the engine. Firebird Embedded is single user. > >>OK, there is a network-server component, but it really has nothing to do > >>with an enterprise-DB. > > > > There's a server side process waiting for incoming connections > > just like with MySQL, MS SQL Server, Oracle etc etc... > > Well, the network-server seemed to me like an application that uses the > library i mentioned above. Not at all. It's the other way around: the embedded version is almost the same as the server-side engine process, but wrapped into a library. > It doesn't seem to me like a big application > like MySql or MaxDB. In other words: Firebird seems to be light weight > DBMS. Light weight it sure is. Very modest on memory requirements, for example. A bit too modest sometimes :-) >MySQL and MaxDB have a multi-threaded kernel that maintains its > own cache, coordinates locks, etc. > I don't think that Firebird's architecture is like that. On the contrary, Firebirds architecture is exactly like that. With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL Server. Upscene Productions http://www.upscene.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
