Point taken for the enterprise comparison. The reason for having the
embedded database is to hide the complexity for installing, using, and
configuration of the database from the user of the application. You don't
want a scaled version of the database.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Caduto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished
Stephen Ince wrote:
Postgres can't be embedded or serverless. Firebird has the embedded
feature. Most of the databases have this capability (hsqldb,
derby,oracle,mysql, firebird, and db2). Derby and hsqldb are the only
free embedded databases for commercial use.
A lot of Firebird users have been saying this as well, but the comparison
if more for Enterprise use.
Plus if you need a embedded database wouldn't it be better to use one
built specifically for that purpose? i.e. SQLite for example.
Good call on the name limit, I remember running into that when porting
something from MS SQL server to Firebird about 4 years ago.
I will have to check and see if this still applies to version 2.0
Later,
Tony
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
