Slashdot Mirror
Firebird Relational Database 1.5 Final Out
firebirdy writes "The Firebird Project is pleased to announce that the v1.5 release of the Firebird database engine is now available for immediate download. The v1.5 release represents a major upgrade to the engine, which has been developed by an independent team of voluntary developers from the InterBase(tm) source code that was released by Borland under the InterBase Public License v.1.0 on 25 July 2000. Development on the Firebird 2 codebase began early in Firebird 1 development, with the porting of the Firebird 1 C code to C++ and the first major code-cleaning. Firebird 1.5 is the first release of the Firebird 2 codebase. Install packages are currently only available for Windows and Linux but other platforms should follow shortly." This product is not to be confused with newly renamed Firefox web browser, which was also called Firebird for some time.
The only reason anyone even knows about them anyway is because of the former Mozilla Firebird. :O
Just kind of curious if anyone would care at all if there hadn't been the big stink with the name conflicts.
I mean, has anyone used this database? Is it really of any note that v1.5 is out?
-- taking over the world, we are.
How does it compare to MySQL for web sites, that typically makes a lot of short connections to the same database?
{{.sig}}
You know, I really don't have anything against the firebird(tm) db people. I'm sure they are all fine coders and the DB is probably fairly decent. Personaly, I'm not leaving mysql anytime soon but that is beside the point.
I'm not looking at thier web page. I'm not considering Firebird(tm) for any projects. I'm not recommending it to other people. I don't even really care about any new features in yet another relational database.
Why? Why would anyone go out of thier way to not learn about a (free?) new database release? My reasons are simple. I don't like the way they handled the Mozilla/Firebird naming issue. Does that have anything at all to do with the quality of thier products? I doubt it. Should I be so shallow so as to pre-judge an entire company and thier products by the way they handle thier PR? Probably not... but I'm still not sending SCO $699.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
At first I thought Firebird has a RDBMS built into it? No wonder it's so fast; it has the entire Internet in the database...then I remembered the name change. Doh
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
I'm so glad this version of FireBird renders CSS properly... no wait...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
no it's a database!
It's not a matter of ease, they were around for a lot longer and had the name long before Mozilla co-opted it.
Finkployd
Seriously, though -- I hadn't heard of this particular firebird before the Mozilla fiasco happened. I'm sure I can speak for a lot of folks who couldn't name this project when asked to name the OSS database apps they know.
Of course now they'll be known as the folks that got the name "Firebird" when Firebird changed its name to Firefox. Oh yeah, and they make a database.
The only people I know that would use mysql as the backend for anything aren't DBA's. Why? Because it allows you to put crap in your database.. This has been debated countless times on /. so there's no point going through all the points again. Lets just say any DBA worth a grain of salt wouldn't use mysql.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Due to trademark infringement potential and other potential confusion, Firebird Database Engine has just changed its name to
F------d Database Engine
More news to follow.
P.S. For any lawyers, etc. reading this, the above is an example of "parody", not subject to the definition of "slander" or "libel".
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
I work as a data-mining professional and aside from creating statistical models on flat-files, I manage the process of transforming and joining relational databases into a a flat file for model building.
Currently we use Oracle for this work, but in the past we tried switching to MySQL but found that it lacked some of the key features such as materialized views, nested sub-queries and a variety of Oracle SQL functions that we find useful. MySQL seemed to be geared towards maintaining a real-time database to support customer interaction, rather than as an environment for assembling static data sources.
Could Firebird be a viable open-source alternative, or are there others?
They don't make this apparent in their homepage. How do I use this? Is there an ODBC driver? Can I talk to it with a PHP driven website?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
So, I typed in slashdot.org but somehow I ended up on freshmeat.net. wtf?
No, I didn't
it's right here
Any idiot could of figured that out.
I'm waiting for their more resource efficient Sunbird product.
'Same speed C but faster'
I love PostgreSQL. It's OO, blazingly fast, easy to install, robust, and free as free can be. All sorts of things that Firebird is not. And the name doesn't have a chance of *ever* conflicting with anything. Hah.
Random and weird software I've written.
A company called FIREFOX used to exist in the UK,
and yes, it manufactured software.
Wow, two troll posts. You buy a sco license too?
I tried building the Firebird code a few months ago, and found out that step 1 is...
...start with a running version of Firebird!
Bootstrapping might seem like a K00l trick, but there is something uncomfortable about self-referential build procedures (not to mention that it was a pain in the ass to find a preexisting version of Firebird to run).
Gimme a pile of c/cpp & h files and let me build it from scratch, dammit!
Is that possible today? Dunno...the build guide appears to be still under construction.
Why are you people bashing so hard about the naming issue? You know what? I don't care!
I know Firebird DB since it's earlier days and I was a Interbase user before that. And I loved it. Why? Because the kind of job I did that time required a simple, efective, maintence-free database and Firebird is exactly that. You can just install it and forget it. The whole database is just one file (at least was) so a simple tar or zip will backup your stuff.
Yeah, yeah, I know there is MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc but as I said, I'm not on this kind of job anymore and even if I was, while firebird does what I want (and well) why should I care about other RDBMS?
Scientia est Potentia
You know what, a good product often has to revamp its image in order to accelerate takeup. I suggest they change their name to something fiesty, energetic and powerful-sounding.
Why not combine the fiestyness of a fox with the power of fire. I suggest something like Foxfire or Firefox!
"Smoking helps you lose weight - one lung at a time" -- A. E. Neumann
to serve up pages, one to view them... and one Firebird to rule them all?
>SQL is not relational. Its tables are not relations, because relations are sets, and sets don't contain duplicates.
Yeah, but if you relationate without any protection, you're going to somehow end up with look-alike duplicates...
...so if I named one of my turds "slashdot" in 1983...
I'm afraid that's stretching the definition of 'prior art' to its very limit.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
So how many slashdotters actually downloaded it and attempted to run? The damn thing doesn't even compile on RedHat 9.0 with the latest GCC.
Not quite true, it cause some maning conflicts in some distros (in gentoo firebird refers to the DB and mozilla-firebird refered to the browser).
How hard is it really to do a search on freshmeat, sourceforge, and google before you name a project? I do it all the time.
Plus it isn't like it was a dead project or a one person project, it had a (albiet not MySQL size) following and was under active development.
Sorry, I love Mozilla but they were in the wrong here.
Finkployd
sunnuvabitch! I liked it better when It was a browser.
Rows have implicit unique row ids which make each row unique. So, there are no duplicates.
I don't know a thing about Firebird, but I'm not prepared to dismiss it simply because of a name conflict with Firefox. Maybe it's a great database. Maybe they didn't treat Firefox fairly when disputing the duplicate name. Maybe they had a legitimate right to their name and the Mozilla folks should have been more diligent about picking a name.
Either way, I doubt the people at Firebird deserve the occasional vitriol from others on this thread.
--Nick
it could do without the curses, but other than that, I completely agree.
Well, firebird is definitely a good contender, but I still want a database server that's fast and small... and the faster and smaller the better. Problem is I need most of the features you'll see in a high end one, and I need it to be open source.. SQLite was actually a contender at one point, but I want replication as well.. so.. my question is when is someone gonna fill this niche?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
...but i cannot seem to find the Tabbed Browsing thingie :(.
If you go to the Firebird Project website, you'll see they feature, quite respectfully, Mozilla's recent decision to change their name to Firefox. Remember that the Mozilla team has gone through a lot of name changes. Camino was changed to Chimera, and Phoenix was changed to the rather unfortunate "Firebird" which was already a project name. So it's not like the name "Firebird" was all that entrenched.
I think it's a symptom of Mozilla both try to brand, and being an Open Source project in which one monolithic product was split into various and sundry projects, each of which got bizarely named. I mean, there's nothing about any of the application titles that indicates its use or purpose.
I myself vote for MozillaMail and MozillaBrowser or something of that ilk instead of Thunderbird and Firefox. Then the package now called "Mozilla" could be renamed to MozillaComplete or something like that.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
I thought that the Mozilla people were the ones who realized that they had taken a name of another Free/Open Source project, and they decided to change it. I didn't know anything about Firebird's developers acting like asses about it. Where did this info come from?
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
And we should trust that web site as authoritative because...? The all-caps page title doesn't inspire confidence. Is this "Proof by Google"?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
There appears to be two broad groups on this site - the useful ones (you know their posts when you see them) and the other group.
Most of the posts I'm seeing here so far belong in the other group. Today they can't seem to get past a naming issue (which the DB had first BTW), and appear to have no interest in what the product is.
When you are reading *and writing* to your database and there is money attached to the data integrity, this product will be fine. MySQL will not. Just imagine that you are penalised personally $1000 for every data munge that occurs in your database? I imagine that your affinity to the MySQL mindset will start to wane rather quickly.
This database is right up with PostgreSQL and as an added bonus Firebird can be deployed on Windows and Linux. (Plus StroredProcs and Triggers galore)
If all you can focus on however, is the project name, then be angry that Mozilla rudely co-opted the name that the DB first owned.
And to all the slashdotters that despair at the rising tide of inane useless postings - well, you are not alone. Slashdot used to be about geek topics for geeks. New product releases, gotchas, advice, interesting hardware hacks, solving problems with FOSS etc. Now I must content myself with the current posting selections.
And now the ultimate tirade: If you want to feed your geek/technical fetish, it's getting to the point where you'd do better watching McGyver or something.
AC
They have a nice type-3 (100% java) jdbc driver available.
why not take a look at their homepage?
This is utter nonsense. I see the author's argument but it is incorrect and pedantic. In nearly all cases duplicate records are not returned. When I say "nearly all" the exceptions are: tables without a primary key containing otherwise duplicate rows, and the results of multiple SELECT statements using the "UNION ALL" keyword. UNION ALL tells the engine to go ahead and give me ALL of the rows including duplicates.
And it is not to be confused with the Pontiac Firebird automobile, which was popular for a while but now discontinued. They do make a Sunfire now, which is not to be confused with Firefox, a web browser, which used to be called Firebird, which is now a dbms.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I think that this reduces uptake of the database, becuase of the barriers to just taking a casual peek of their features. The whole documentation is just locked away with the keys.
Perhaps this is becuase they want more people to have paid support? A PDF manual is all well and good, but at least give us a bone to chew on with a feature list, reasons why people should use the database and so forth.
Newsfollow.com
Which old name?
It was once Netscape... until they screwed up in the market so bad that they gave up on it and released the source as:
Mozilla... until it became so bloated and overdesigned (and dangerously close to a movie company's trademark on a mutant lizard) that they had to start over as a project called:
Phoenix... which they forgot to check to see if that trademark had been used by a software company for about 20 years already, causing them to have to change it in a kneejerk reaction to:
Firebird... which they also forgot was already taken by a project that was already smart enough to not use "Phoenix". Thus causing them to switch once again to:
Firefox... which, (assuming they finally did their homework and checked on trademarks) is actually the best name since the original "Netscape".
the "Bitchin' Camaro Database"... :)
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
A number of ACCT and Manufacturing packages have already taken up Firebird as a backend. It's being looked seriously as a replacement for Pervasive and some of the other low end/low cost RDBMSs.
When I read rants like those contain in Database Debunkings or the hyper-attenuated formalism of C.J. Date's book, a little voice keeps saying "any yet...and yet". Somehow despite the fact that we use tables instead of relvars I can still book a flight or order a book from Amazon. If these guys are selling something other than arrant pendantry somehow it has escaped me and, it seems, the rest of the data processing world. Put up or shut up. If SQL is such a violation of proper set theory and that matters for something, you should be able to make a fortune selling the Tutorial-D's purity of essence
Mindless MySql bashing troll! Mod down. And for those who for some reason don't know: current MySql versions support all these features.
Of course, if you go back to the stone age you might find some MySql version which didn't yet support everything that makes a database a database, but if we go that far back in time, I'm sure we'll find flamebox be wanting in some areas as well...
Oh, [to the moderator who modded this as Informative]: may I have some of that "tobacco" that you have in your pipe? It smells so good!
I think they should they should name it interbase ;-)
While Postgres is the better database, installing Firebird/Interbase is a much easier task for the average user. That makes it a terrific little cross-platform client-caching database, such as letting the spreadsheet users slice at the data with an ODBC driver without killing the primary database server. For the same reasons, it's a handy tool for writing small standalone database apps without locking in to a Win32 codebase (e.g. MS Access.) I'd say it even has potential to serve the same kind of markets that the "light" servers like Sybase SQL Anywhere serve.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You make it sound like there was bad blood between the two projects. Mozilla Firebird changed its name not because of impending lawsuits, but because having two Open-Source projects with the same name just makes things *really* confusing. When you google "firebird", which project would you be getting? When you and your friends talk about "firebird", is it a car, a database, or a web browser? When Gentoo... well, you get the idea. Really, the issue isn't what you make it to be.
Slashdot reported it when Interbase was first announced to be going open source, and followed up on the actual releases afterward, so lots of people cared a few years ago. Interbase keeps getting mentioned by users in more general database discussions as well, so at least some Slashdot users still care, even users who are more interested in database features than in database names.
I've used it in several projects, over the years. In my day job, we recently added Firebird to the list of databases that we support as warehouse targets for our application. Firebird's instant installation, small footprint, and portability (a few meg) are good reasons to do this. Another good reason is that it outperforms Oracle on the same hardware, as well as several other commercial databases.
We used to deploy Interbase as part of a product at a company I worked at years back. We would install, start the system (which had multi-gigabyte databases at times), and then not look at it again for YEARS. Two years could go by without tuning, transaction log clearing, or anything else, for that matter. It doesn't have transaction logs (doesn't need them), and sweeps itself clear of most detritus automatically.
Backups could effortlessly be done on the fly. Full two-phase commit support. And when it comes to complex transactions, it's one of the best databases out there because of its generational architecture (something it shares with PostgreSQL).
There are a few rough edges on it, like the lack of a standard GUI administration tool. Java support was slow to evolve. The lack of care given by Borland hurt the product for a time. The Firebird people seem to have done a lot of hard work, and deserve praise.
And for the record, Firefox or whatever the hell it is calling itself this week is one of the stupidest excuses for a software package I've seen to date. It's Mozilla minus most of the features that make Moz useful and extensible. It doesn't run any faster than Moz in resident mode. It performs no useful function I am aware of. The adulation it receives utterly escapes me; it seems to be a prime example of building software for the past. The engineering effort would have been far better spent on Moz itself.
Then, just to mix things up, you have SAP DB, which is open source with a very proprietary background, much like Firebird. And probably with a lot of the same problems in terms of administration and code accessibility.
I certainly wish the developers no ill will, or to disparage their efforts -- but I've yet to see the argument for using Firebird outside of legacy projects. It's easy to argue MySQL vs. Firebird, but PostgreSQL is the real competitor.
The Firebird Linux download section is titled 386 but the files have 686 in their name. Can I install these on less than a 686? Namely an AMD K6-2/550mhz ?
8 6 0 i386 .rpm4 0 i386 .gz
Firebird-linux-i386 [show only this package]
1.5.0-Release [show only this release]
FirebirdCS-1.5.0.4290-0.i686.rpm
28378
FirebirdCS-1.5.0.4290-0.i686.tar.gz
280218
etc...
So now hopefully it won't be confused with the movie of the same name.
Firefox
I've always been a big fan of the Foxbird Database system, and this release looks better than ever!
With "current MySql versions", you mean the pre-alpha development release which for example will have (potentially crude) stored procedures? As opposed to the current unsupported beta version, which is the first to finally have subqueries (of course, after years of telling customers that you don't want them anyway, just as MySQL AB did with all other basic DBMS features they only now promise to support in a few years)?
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
We are about to ship a cross platform Struts (java) based application and needed a simple, low maintenance, low overhead, cross-platform,truly free and fast sql engine.
Enter Firebird. Installation is a breeze under both operating systems and its all plug and play after that.
MySQL is nice but can be a maintenance headache and good luck included it in a shipping product, it violates the license or so the lawyers tell me.
I use mysql on my webservers, I embed firebird in my shipping products. Its been great so far!
It was once Netscape... until they screwed up in the market so bad that they gave up on it and released the source as:
Mozilla... until it became so bloated and overdesigned (and dangerously close to a movie company's trademark on a mutant lizard) that they had to start over as a project called:
That's a bit harsh - how about unfair competition? Anyway, "Mozilla" was the internal codename for Navigator at Netscape. It has always been it's name and it still is today (now for the whole suite).
To quote the "Freeing the Source: The Story of Mozilla " :
Mozilla was a term initially created by Jamie Zawinsky and company during the development of Navigator. The team was working at a similarly frantic pace to create a beast vastly more powerful than Mosaic, and the word became the official code name for Navigator.Firefox... which, (assuming they finally did their homework and checked on trademarks) is actually the best name since the original "Netscape".
They better! The name is catchy and the logo is quite beautiful. Try "Help" > "About Mozilla Firefox".
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
This isn't static data functionality - it's standard data warehousing functionality.
And none of the open source databases have yet caught up with the features that the commercial databases have been adding over the past seven years in support of this.
Still, I've used postgresql for some reporting, and it isn't the end of the world to drop back to older technology in warehousing. But the lack of materialized views isn't the real issue - it's the lack of any form of partitioning.
The documentation on the sight is dated / plagued:
...
"Last 10 Releases"
31-Dec-1969 firebird 1.5.0-Release (Source)
1969? That's a neat trick. Hopefully development is a little more dedicated than documentation.
Looking at the list of who's deploying the DB on which platforms, the organization list is impressive, but where's current information?
"This page was last updated on 2000-12-31 21:23:04 -0400" doesn't impart warm fuziness, nor do the few references to Linux kernel 2.2.x.
Who's managing the project, and why do they suck at advocating it?
Obviously you can generate duplicate rows any number of ways if you include non-unique column combinations in your SELECT.
In any rate, because SQL allows you to create a table *without* a primary key (which then means that result sets can have duplicate rows) then it is not relational. End of story.
No one is saying that SQL is double-plus ungood, just pointing out that it is not relational (just as saying that 2+2 != 5, and the sky is not made of fish), and don't attribute deficiencies of SQL to deficiencies of the relational model.
You can begin to understand how Date and Pascal et al at DBDebunk.com feel if you consider the following scenario (this thought exercise presupposes that perfect is possible):
Now that this long-winded description is over you can replace The Perfect Car with The Relational Model and "Perfect Car" Implementations with {Oracle, MySQL, etc.}. You can replace "New Perfect Car Models" (including "Without Significant Scientific Background") with {XML, OO-DBMS, 'Persistence Layers', etc.}.
No one is saying that you cannot use SQL products or XML, or that you cannot accomplish tasks in these tools, just that when used in the context of data management they are poorly solving what the Relational Model already solved.
Because IT practitioners are poorly educated and increasingly fad-driven they latch onto non-solutions (like XML, "Post-Relational", OO-DBMS, etc.) and put little or no pressure on DBMS vendors to get it right. Even worse, if someone does release a Truly Relational DBMS there are no guarantees that anyone will buy it due to the ignorance of the IT community.
Put simply: People don't know what they're missing, so they don't know to ask.
Thanks,
--
Matt
RowIDs typically are:
1) Not visible to the user
2) Based on physical (e.g. on-disk) row placement (e.g. Oracle's ROWID pseudocolumn)
Both of these are violations of the relational model.
If, however, every table had a unique sequence number or something, then sure they would not be materially in breach of the uniqueness constraint. However, remember that result sets are *also* relations so you would have to have DISTINCT appended to every SELECT statement to also pass the uniqueness test.
Thanks,
--
Matt
Is is just me, or is it kind of daft to declare that
"Firebird 1.5 is the first release of the Firebird 2 codebase"
I mean, if it's Firebird 2, call it Firebird 2, for crying out loud!
It reminds me of Sun, and their wonderful numbering "system" for Java:
"At the second JavaOne conference, Sun will announce version 1.4 of Java 2 Enterprise Edition, along with version 1.4.1 of Java 2 Standard Edition and JavaBeans version 2.9"
[Not a real quote, but close enough...]
My GF suggests Browzilla... (I won't dare suggest any name on the Firefox forum, they're getting very touchy about the subject!)
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
As far as I know google uses its own proprietory software not mysql.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Where are the moderator points when you need them?
Does this new version still use "LOCKSMITH" for the backdoor password? Or has it been changed to something else?
Ah shit, I commented on this while logged in. Fuckers.
yeah, that's really dumb of them.
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
Not if you use the hidden BACKDOOR!
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
I love Firebird, it is very nice to the DBA and throws errors when you insert invalid data or data that gets truncated.
Does it handle mailto tags or what?
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
can I use this in a comercial system? who do I pay what does it cost? I am learning python because it seems unencumbered. I am certainly willing (HAPPY) to contribute back any bugfix or enhancement I might need for my own use, (it would be a huge ego thing if I could contribute to a usefull open source project) The key thing is can I use it the "consulting-ware" for definition see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20020507.html stuff I make my living from.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
Someone care to translate? What's the damn version? 1? 1.5? 2? How can 1.5 be a release on the 2.0 codebase??
I am lost.
Great! Then you owe me $699 for a license* to use Slashdot!
* binary only. no html or javascript. I am sympathetic to the problem you face caused by me.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
And for the record, Firefox or whatever the hell it is calling itself this week is one of the stupidest excuses for a software package I've seen to date. It's Mozilla minus most of the features that make Moz useful and extensible. It doesn't run any faster than Moz in resident mode. It performs no useful function I am aware of. The adulation it receives utterly escapes me; it seems to be a prime example of building software for the past. The engineering effort would have been far better spent on Moz itself.
This little statement makes me wonder if I should even trust any of the things you said before it.
Firefox is definitely faster. It has some features that Mozilla doesn't have, and all the good features of Mozilla. Anything else you need can be added through extensions, but I've never had to do this. It IS the next Mozilla, Mozilla in its current state is obsolete.
I know it's a toy, but it's getting there eventually. MySQL already has nested subqueries, both in the WHERE or FROM parts. I am not sure they allow them to be in the SELECT portion, but that really important (can't you always simulate it if you are allowd to use them in the FROM part?).
Stored procedures and triggers are already in beta (i know, but that means they will be usable sooner), transactions are already there and work fine. They will stabilize.
This is a marginal benefit for very large companies but an incredible bonus and fresh air for small and medium companies. The free factor is making small and medium companies more profitable, taking away some of the benefits of being a monster company (ie: minimun size to be able to be profitable in a given business).
MySQL, Postgre or Firebird are suitable for 95% of the jobs IMHO.
unfinished: (adj.)
Quote from this article
Despite the new name being approved by AOL Legal, supporters of the FirebirdSQL database were quick to object (though the name is also used by many other people).
So was AOL Legal wrong?
was just reading through old comments on the subject and found this comment to be particularly interesting.
Okay, now riddle me this: If the theoretical relational model solves real problems that the real-world relational databases don't, then why don't the RDBMS vendors change their products? Or why hasn't any newly developed RDBMS, ever since the advent of the relational model in the 1970's, chosen to implement the "proper" relational model instead of the "crippled" one? Can you give an example of a real-world problem that is solved better by the theoretical model than the model implemented by RDBMS systems?
All of the stuff that MySQL lacked (and still lacks in usable form)
Alright, I'm somewhat of a beginner as far as databases are concerned. I've only really used MySQL, and admittedly, I've only used it for relatively small tasks so far... but what is it that MySQL lacks? Are there actual tasks that simply can't be done (I've noticed people saying InnoDB apparently helps), or is it just a matter of performance and efficiency? Are these important things that are missing, or just specialized features that I probably won't even need unless I'm dealing with monster, multi-gigabyte corporate databases?
And if MySQL is supposedly missing a bunch of stuff... then why are people still using it? Are there things it does better than the rest of the DB's out there?
I don't mean to start any DB Wars or anything... I'm legitimately curious here. The only reason I chose MySQL in the first place was because I needed a DB, and I recognized the name, and so far, it's done everything I've needed it to do... so unless someone can inform me of some crazy-amazing feature I'm missing out on, or can show me something that seriously outperforms MySQL (I'm running on a very slow system by today's standards), then I doubt I'll stop using MySQL anytime soon.
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
First, they are not RDBMS vendors. They are SQL (or quasi-SQL, as with Oracle and MySQL) DBMS (or quasi-DBMS, as with MySQL again) vendors.
Now, answers are easy. You might as well ask why it took Apple 20 years to have a real OS, or why MS don't have security at all. Do you want it spelled out? Ignorance, they are too rich, lazyness, and shoot-the-messenger, NIH mentalities.
Just take a look at my own Relational DBMS implementations list at DMoz. Not all listed there are truly relational, but the best approximations at their own time. You can even get free downloads. None is SQL compliant.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
That is one thing you should never do. Never ever trust any web site as authoritative.
What could be good for you is to read the arguments critically, and think. Perhaps even get a book, either on you library or buying it -- Date's _An Introduction to Database Systems_ *is* the standard reference textbook in the area, so it's worth it.
BTW, all caps in a title is perfectly accepted practice.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Anyway these are not sets, therefore not relations.
How'd ya feel if I invented an algebra where almost always gave a number as a result?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
More insightful information on the differences between SQL-DBMS and R-DBMS is on DB Debunk
OT: Have to post AC, have been modding.
If you use Borland Delphi (a Pascal-like language and development environment under Windows), then naturally you use Interbase for its RDBMS server. Then when you want to deploy that system and you need a dedicated database server, you can easily install Interbase on Win or Linux, or even better (IMO), Firebird instead.
So was AOL Legal wrong?
Legally? probably not. Ignoring the lawyers though, this kind of namespace collision should be avoided in the OSS community just as a matter of principle. People get confused as it is knowing what program to use for what.
Finkployd
Good point. But then wouldn't the fault be placed onto FirebirdDB? What I don't understand is that if they valued brand recognition as much as they have demostrated during the naming debate, why did they even choose the name "Firebird" in the first place? The name is very, very common and you didn't need to google it up to recognize that.
Mozilla obviously wanted a web browser codename that sound cool (e.g. phoenix, firebird, firefox). I would gander that FirebirdDB choose "firebird" for similar reasons. If they wanted to be uniquely identified, shouldn't they have choosen a different name?
I guess it just seems (from my point of view mind you) that it was poor strategic planning on the part of FirebirdDB. Not saying if it was appropriate for Mozilla to take up that name after learning of FirebirdDB, but didn't FirebirdDB bring this onto themselves?
Hey, just because you chose to live under a rock for 3 years doesn't mean the time stood still for everybody else too!
You're lucky!!!
:-(
I started development for Intebase 5.1 and in a month i found 2 bugs, one of them made database unable to restore from backup. Just a specific order fo creating tables.
Dummy finding bugs, how would You like it?
And had You heard of merge of Firebird and Yaffil projects. Why... Some points are told in 'in the beginning' post. To continue it:
Later some developers from both teams were pricking themselves in russian Interbase usergroup.
Firebird was enhancing SQL, making Yaffil re-implement those features.
While Yaffil was too much faster, making Firebird team try to optimise their codebase.
It was a neverending reason of jokes.
And sure they were finding and fixing bugs. Each in their own codebase, with only limited help to each other.
By the way, Yaffil, and later in 1.5alpha Firebird too, had changed heap manager - and found reasons of 'Interbase is unstable under heavy load' rumours. There were place, where memory was freed, but still used after.
This spring 2 awfull bugs was discovered, one of them existed in Interbase 4.1 and maybe even longer back to the history.
There was legal way to make duplicate values in P.K.
It is amazing that no one stepped upon that 2 rooks ever before.
That was the last drops, working together on fixes the teams finally decided to merge back.
It will be interesting and, i hope, great story.
PS: i wonder if You will look through Firebird issue tracker, and try those bugs over Borland Interbase, wat will there be the result ?
PPS: Have Your heard of www.ibaid.com ? Alas, interbase _can_ crash the database.
For early IB6.0x it was enougth to grow database file 4gb of size, the next bytes were written into header
Small office never needed such amounts of data, but will they - they will certainly need mature DBA that knows about the issue.
Borland developed Interbase for years, and suddenly... Suddenly they tld they are no more interested in Interbase, so the project is discontinued.
:-)
there worst thing about commercial apps, is that once You may hear 'game over'.
The developers was shocked and even organised some movement to force Borland notto harry killinh Interbase. Thanks to www.mers.com
In about a year Borland reacted, telling here is You Interbase 6.0 - if You like it - take it and do whatever needed. Later they acted back with IB 6.5, but that is out of iinterest here.
They has been taken - by developers who resigned from Borland after that, especially those, who resigned from Digital many years ago to create the database, as Digital's chiefs were not interested in enhancing OpenVMS OS built-in database management.
Sure during this year they found themself a work and could not soent too much time on cleaning ex-IB6 code.
So the next year was spent for creating the community and finding sponsors.
This 2 years delay was so dark time, that 2 programmers in SaintPetersburg forked the stalled Firebird project and started Yaffil project (http://yaffil.ibase.ru, seems the fastest but Win32-only clone of Interbase)
Later there appeared new developers, some grants, fund, et cetera. But those two years were defenitely years of death.
Personally i treat 'Firebird' as sardonic codename, meant "We're still here after those years, are we dead or not?"
Currently, when life is back in Firebird, and after they together fixed some awfull legacy bugs, they desided to merge together again, but theis is another story...
..as soon as someone will create one.
Those PDF's that are on their homepage (http://firebirdsql.org/) are taken form Borland. You can distibute and read them but cannot change a single bit in them.
You see, nothing is locked.
Opposite, Helen Borrie (hope i did not misspelled) created the book on Firebird that is going to be published, do not know how detailed it is.
Year ago russian usergroup created a book too (most efforts was from developers of www.devrace.com), though it is more like 'getting started', things You must know, and things You must be interested and searching beyond this book for particular kinds of work you need done.
Maybe You can read of that book at www.interbase-world.com, though it may appear - since no interest to the book was shown aside Russia - it may be omitted on English pages.
Aaahh! shame on me, i forgotten. 3 years ago a book in Germany was published.
Yopu see, 3 books it is not 'nothing'.
So why there is no documentation?
Simple. Try to make one *without* reading those PDF's and any derived from them information....
Can anyone do it?
That is like the disclamer at www.DotGNU.org that tells You never read any documentation, that has some license restriction, if You want to participate - cause after all Your work may be used to issue the whole project as pirated one.
Time is flying fast...
:-)
Not this spring, sure, but the last fall.
Merge was announced in December.
I remember those troubles was between winter and summer and...
Sorry, seems i am too longing for March
.. and our systems are based around it. Online, Batch and Web Interface (through CICS). It's not that bad actually.
:) ) is designed for it. Wheeee
When you're next dealing with a database (DB2 in this case) with over 20 million rows in the main table, your other table (address) is 16 times the size and you need create a program for updating data according to rigid criteria consider Delta (which generates COBOL code). I could do this in Java, C, C++ or indeed any language that runs on the mainframe (yes, Java runs on OS/390).. but COBOL (Delta
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Not to get really pissy here, especially since my reply is somewhat tardy, but your statement "In any rate, because SQL allows you to create a table *without* a primary key (which then means that result sets can have duplicate rows) then it is not relational. End of story." is complete garbage. Relational does not refer to restrictions that the software imposes on the developer. Any database product that allows a developer to relate a record in one table to a record in another table is relational. "End of story." I can whip up a shitty Python app that satisfies this definition in a few minutes, and just because it isn't a ROFLSTFUIANALIMHODBMS doesn't mean it's not relational. Relational is an idea. Please try to understand that. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but you seem to have a sadly anal (and incorrectly so) way of looking at this. The first real thing I learned about databases was the difference between single-table, flat-file databases and multi-table, relational databases. Can you honestly tell me that what I do for a living is not develop relational databases just because you have such a narrow definition? I do not mean to offend, but I cannot let your statement stand uncorrected. I also apologize for using an "end of story" line in any way, as there often isn't anything definitive about computers or software.
I am feeling fat and sassy
Only like there is actually a need for a car that doesn't crash and drives you to your destination. Certainly you can get from point A to point B with any old auto now -- but it would be easier and safer if the car did that for you (presupposing that such algorithms could be written etc.)
The Relational Model is quite well-defined by Codd -- your assertions are quite false and make little or no sense. A series of "rules of thumbs" is available online - search google for Codd's 12 rules.
You are incorrect. A RDBMS is comprised of relations which have a very strict mathematical definition. Their set-theoretic background rules out duplicate tuples (rows) - sets do not contain duplicates. A relation that allows duplicates is no longer a relation by definition, therefore a DBMS which allows duplicate rows is not relational. Q.E.D.
You can logically model a RDBMS - but no such product exists to fully implement that logical model. You have to shoehorn it into a SQL DBMS which does not fully implement the relational model.
Try picking up a few good books/papers (Practical Issues in Database Management by Pascal, just about any of Codd's works, etc.) and reading them. You are obviously ignorant about RDBMS.
Thanks,
--
Matt