| From: | Andy <nospam(at)noplace(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL/FireBird |
| Date: | 2007-02-02 14:58:01 |
| Message-ID: | epvjln$2jlp$1@news.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
RPK wrote:
> How is FireBird rated when compared with PostgreSQL?
Firebird is a good db. But it has its spaces. Its is the little
brother of PG.
It has two modes: classic (spawn per connection, small caching) and
superServer (one program w/threads and lots of caching). superserver
does not run well on SMP. If you need SMP run classic.
The best part is the maintenance. Its very simple to setup and run and
requires no maintenance. I'd say for medium size its great, but for
huge, go PG.
Firebird does not span disks well (you can have multiple files, but
cannot tell what's in each file), no clustering, and poor replication
(3rd party only).
So, really, it depends on your needs.
-Andy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | gf | 2007-02-02 15:03:18 | accidentally deleted user --> postgres |
| Previous Message | Alexander Staubo | 2007-02-02 14:45:03 | Re: PostgreSQL/FireBird |