What counts as a real DBMS?
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Henrik Edlund wrote: And while we are discussing not cutting corners, those who still use MySQL should switch to a real DBMS before they even think of abstracting the SQL away from their Perl code. That people still use MySQL really shows how many lusers there are with computers that try to develop real software. I said _try_. What would you consider to be a real DBMS? Sybase and Oracle obviously, but I actually am the hypothetical programmer with a 233MHz machine with 64 MB RAM (hey, it runs emacs fine :/) on a shoestring budget who is mostly limited to using freeware tools. What about PostgreSQL and Interbase? Do those have the features of a 'real' DBMS?
Re: What counts as a real DBMS?
Hi guys, On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Philip Mak wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Henrik Edlund wrote: And while we are discussing not cutting corners, those who still use MySQL should switch to a real DBMS before they even think of abstracting What would you consider to be a real DBMS? Guys, please stop it. There are people who have work to do. 73, Ged.
Re: What counts as a real DBMS?
At 4:27 PM -0400 8/1/01, Philip Mak wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Henrik Edlund wrote: And while we are discussing not cutting corners, those who still use MySQL should switch to a real DBMS before they even think of abstracting the SQL away from their Perl code. That people still use MySQL really shows how many lusers there are with computers that try to develop real software. I said _try_. What would you consider to be a real DBMS? Sybase and Oracle obviously, but I actually am the hypothetical programmer with a 233MHz machine with 64 MB RAM (hey, it runs emacs fine :/) on a shoestring budget who is mostly limited to using freeware tools. What about PostgreSQL and Interbase? Do those have the features of a 'real' DBMS? I use sequences. Therefore I need a real DBMS (either that or a rock solid way of generating UNIQUE ids). Oracle and PostgreSQL have great support for sequences. Sybase sucks from the standpoint of sequences. It's almost impossible to write a conversion script for Oracle sequences to Sybase (@@identity?) sequences without developing a tumor... Same goes for MySQL (LAST_INSERTED_ID?). There are things about Sybase and MySQL that I consider amazing. Sybase is amazingly fast, even with many thousands of connections. MySQL is blazingly fast for even large database (so long as you're not doing any inserts). Over all though, I consider Oracle and PostgreSQL the top in the Commercial and Free markets. Rob -- A good magician never reveals his secret; the unbelievable trick becomes simple and obvious once it is explained. So too with UNIX.
Re: What counts as a real DBMS?
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Philip Mak wrote: PM What would you consider to be a real DBMS? Sybase and Oracle obviously, PM but I actually am the hypothetical programmer with a 233MHz machine with PM 64 MB RAM (hey, it runs emacs fine :/) on a shoestring budget who is PM mostly limited to using freeware tools. PM PM What about PostgreSQL and Interbase? Do those have the features of a PM 'real' DBMS? PostgreSQL is a real DBMS. I am involved in a non-profit project where we run PostgresSQL (and Linux, Apache, ...) on a P200 with 128 megabyte RAM. Works great. It also worked great when we had a i486 and 32 megabyte RAM. (http://www.ticalc.org/) I have never worked with InterBase so someone else might have to answer if it complies with ACID. Regards, Henrik -- Henrik Edlund [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.edlund.org/ You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens. -- Angelina Jolie
Re: What counts as a real DBMS?
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Philip Mak wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Henrik Edlund wrote: And while we are discussing not cutting corners, those who still use MySQL should switch to a real DBMS before they even think of abstracting the SQL away from their Perl code. That people still use MySQL really shows how many lusers there are with computers that try to develop real software. I said _try_. What would you consider to be a real DBMS? Sybase and Oracle obviously, but I actually am the hypothetical programmer with a 233MHz machine with 64 MB RAM (hey, it runs emacs fine :/) on a shoestring budget who is mostly limited to using freeware tools. What about PostgreSQL and Interbase? Do those have the features of a 'real' DBMS? Yes. Postgres has integrity constraints triggers, stored procedures, a well-known extension interface, transactions, high concurrency, and all of ANSI SQL. PostgreSQL is Free. -jwb
Re: What counts as a real DBMS?
ok my 5c, My vote is for Interbase. Why ? +small runtime size +zero administration +FK with CASCADE +I think it runs on more platforms than any other DB +SUSPEND in stored procs +stored procs can be used in FORM clause +can run on less-powerfull PC's Personaly I've used it on Win95, Win98, WinNT and Linux.. -no LIMIT and/or TOP I had tried a litle bit both MySQL and PostgreSQL.. -the thing I hated in PostgreSQL was that u can't use VIEWS with agregating functions 'cause of the way they are/was implemented ... don't know if it is already corrected in newer versions.. -does it support FK already ?!? (PSQL) + InterBase, PostgreSQL are multiversioning engines.. so they don't need transaction log (anyone with expirience with MS SQL transaction log :) ) so I think InterBase counts as a REAL DB. :) = iVAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
