This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
=== Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Most Advanced From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:48:06 -0500 Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Until InterBase is released open source, it remains to be seen how > > advanced of an open source database it will be. > Is Interbase any good? I never heard of them much. Sounds like it is a > PC database like dbase, right? They don't scale very well. Well, rummaging around the interbase.com website, I found an introductory whitepaper that lists their features. Check http://www.interbase.com/downloads/what_is_ib.pdf for more info. It seems to be an interesting system. To summarize its features (going quickly against the PDF referenced above): Client-server architecture; SQL parser in server; Server side triggers; Stored Procedures; User-defined functions; Event alerters (that notify clients of database changes); Declarative Referential Integrity with cascading operations; Domains and contstraints extend SQL types; Automatic two-phase commit to stabilize distributed mulit-database transactions; Cross-platform scalability and interoperability; Small footprint (3MB disk for minimum, ~20MB for full install) Up to 150 concurrent clients; Y2K correct; Implements entry level SQL-92, plus many intermediate level features and selected features from the full level; InterBase Corp has voting member status in the ANSI SQL standards committee, X3H2; SQL Roles for group-level security; SQL-92 syntax for inner and outer JOIN clauses; Views on tables and joins; Select procedures (that return not a value, but a result set); Full transactional operation; MultiGenerational Architecture (basically the same as our MVCC); Row-level locking; Multiple concurrent transactions on a per-client basis -- each client can have multiple concurrent transactions; Distributed transactions -- a single transaction can be open against multiple databases, with a two-phase commit; BLOBs; Arrays (implemented as structured BLOBs); BLOB filter functions (such as a JPEG to PNG translator); Cost-analysis query optimization; On Unix systems, the InterBase security can be integrated with OS security; Internationalization support, including UNICODE; Integration with Borland JBuilder; ODBC client; Automatic garbage collection -- no vacuum; No preallocation of disk space required -- files up to 4GB in size, with expansion through the use of secondary files (similar to our segmentation); Full ACID compliance. That's the short version. I don't see stuff like: Ability to use Tcl and Perl in stored procedural functions; Object Relational in nature; Endlessly extensible for types, languages, functions, etc. (I especially like that one). And other features of PostgreSQL that we know and love. Nor do I see as many supported architectures. === Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Most Advanced From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:36:20 +0100 (MET) On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Is Interbase any good? I never heard of them much. Sounds like it is a > PC database like dbase, right? They don't scale very well. "InterBase is an enterprise-level database system used by firms and agencies like Nokia, MCI, Northern Telecom, NASA, the US Army, and Boeing. Despite its speed and capabilities, it has been a well-kept secret and holds an insignificant share of the relational database market. Growth of that market has slowed, reducing chance for InterBase to increase its share as a proprietary product." Although they do stand in the tradition of dBase and Paradox, they do appear to be a serious product. This URL might give you an idea what kind of SQL (and beyond) they support. <http://www.interbase.com/products/dsqlsyntax.html> Also, they seem to have an edge (against us) in the areas of logging (journaling) and distributed stuff. Their client languages seem to concentrate around Delphi, C++, and Java. I am just wondering how/whether they will be able to enlist any outside developers in significant masses. (see also Mozilla) === Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Most Advanced From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:04:55 +0200 Lamar Owen wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Until InterBase is released open source, it remains to be seen how > > > advanced of an open source database it will be. > > > Is Interbase any good? I never heard of them much. Sounds like it is a > > PC database like dbase, right? They don't scale very well. IIRC it was missing shared cache between backends. > It seems to be an interesting system. To summarize its features (going > quickly against the PDF referenced above): I try putting a + or - based on weather PG has it (please correct me) +> Client-server architecture; +> SQL parser in server; +> Server side triggers; +> Stored Procedures; +> User-defined functions; +> Event alerters (that notify clients of database changes); Actually or LISTEN/NOTIFY would could use some improvement, it would be much more powerful if it allowed even a single argument to be passed. +> Declarative Referential Integrity with cascading operations; Will be in 7.0 ? -> Domains and contstraints extend SQL types; ?> Automatic two-phase commit to stabilize distributed mulit-database transactions; +> Cross-platform scalability and interoperability; +> Small footprint (3MB disk for minimum, ~20MB for full install) PG should be about the same size +> Up to 150 concurrent clients; What is the upper limit for PG ? +> Y2K correct; +> Implements entry level SQL-92, plus many intermediate level features and selected features from the full level; -> InterBase Corp has voting member status in the ANSI SQL standards committee, X3H2; Is this the bunch of guys we often fondly remember for their SQL3 standard ? -> SQL Roles for group-level security; +> SQL-92 syntax for inner and outer JOIN clauses; Will be in 7.0 ? +> Views on tables and joins; -> Select procedures (that return not a value, but a result set); This requires a rewrite of the pl function API +> Full transactional operation; +> MultiGenerational Architecture (basically the same as our MVCC); ?> Row-level locking; How are we doing here ? ?> Multiple concurrent transactions on a per-client basis -- each client can have multiple concurrent transactions; If client==connection, then we don't have it, if we opened a connection per trx we do -> Distributed transactions -- a single transaction can be open against multiple databases, with a two-phase commit; Support for multi-db is generally weak in PG. A single connction can work only with one db at a time +> BLOBs; We have LOs, but the implementation is nut usable for more than a few on most UNIX filesystems (we have one LO per file, all in the same directory with everything else) +> Arrays (implemented as structured BLOBs); But nut implemented as structured BLOBS ;) +> BLOB filter functions (such as a JPEG to PNG translator); Could be done easily, but not included in distribution at least. +> Cost-analysis query optimization; +> On Unix systems, the InterBase security can be integrated with OS security; +> Internationalization support, including UNICODE; Do we have UNICODE (or just several other MB charsets)? -> Integration with Borland JBuilder; No intgration but can be used from it +> ODBC client; -> Automatic garbage collection -- no vacuum; Implementing it to be _fully_ automatic would make it very hard to re-introduce time travel. We have it semi-automatic using psql -c "vacuum;" in cron ;-p +> No preallocation of disk space required -- files up to 4GB in size, with expansion through the use of secondary files (similar to our segmentation); +> Full ACID compliance. > > That's the short version. > > I don't see stuff like: +> Ability to use Tcl and Perl in stored procedural functions; -> Object Relational in nature; Maybe we should rephrase it to "Object Relational by ancestry". We have very few OR features currently in working order, and probably won't before 7.1. Chris Bitmead has patches for making inherited tables work right (for SELECT,DELETE,UPDATE), but they won't probably be included in 7.0 as they change the behaviour of the only statment (SELECT) that is currently working to some extent and some of the core developers seem to be dependent on the old behaviour, i.e using inheritance as a shortcut for including the same set of columns in an unrelated table. Also people were set back by SQL3 standard which pg should (?) follow to some extent at least, but which is incomprehensible when read directly and which can only be understood through the works of apostles ;) +> Endlessly extensible for types, languages, functions, etc. (I especially like that one). Otoh, they have implemented DOMAINS, which allow much of simpler types to be done at SQL level. They won't probably be indexable. === Tue Jul 25 18:17:12 2000 Some anonymous criticism of postgresql on slashdot (compared to Inprise): Re:My problems with Interbase (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, @04:53PM PST "I believe the only key feature postgresql is missing at the moment is outer joins" Outer joins, real time backups, proper sub-selects, vacuum that doesn't lock everything, limit on number of records you can have in a database (4 billion or so right now), multi threaded design, UNION that actually works properly, multiple bugs in VIEW, blobs are scary here, proper user and table authentication, etc All underway now, I think. Both will be formidable products. PG has superior caching, while IB has a very small memory footprint and, has decent windows versions, and works very well in embedded/limited environments. [ Reply to This | Parent ] ===