On Friday 02 March 2001 00:23, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Meir kriheli wrote:
> > I use both of the databases (Interbase 6.01 and PostgreSQL 7.1beta4).
> >
> > PostgreSQL has more features comapared to Interbase (the procedureal
> > language is very robust and there are many datatyps to choose from. Also
> > you can have some kind of object support in it to inherit tables for
> > example), but it's windows implemenation is very hard (at least for me, I
> > like to compile it).
>
> Postgres also has a nasty show-stopping bug they don't seem to want to
> fix. Try making a stored procedure with many parameters, and send
> a single null to it. I dare you. I so love having all of my other
> parameters, and the return value of the function turned into null because
> postgres can't tell where a null occoured.
I don't like stored procedures, or functions in any programming language that
accepts many parameters, and I avoid the as much as I can. Those things are
hard to debug and write (hmm, what paraemeters should go here ? :-( ) and
they hinder the readability of the code.
As for null values, I don't use them as well, I work with different databases
and each one has their quirks about null. Basiclly null is undefined and
should stay that way. Usually I decide on an invalid value (such as -1) and
pass it to the function.
> I also love the fact that you can't drop foreign keys, modify columns,
> drop columns without rebuilding the entire table, etc. We use it here,
> but it makes me want to pull my hair out. If someone would just combine
> postgres and mysql, we'd have the best database in the universe. Fast and
> stable, with all of the RDBMS anyone could want.
Well I can do all of this in mysql because there's no referential integrity.
You can't drop or modify a column which is reference by a foreign key,
beacuse that would break the integrity. You don't need to rebuld the table,
just drop the foriegn key and off you go.
> But as it stands, postgres is still a bit player with an incomplete
> feature set. But I don't want to start a holy war here, so I'll drop it.
OK.
> > As for speed both are very fast (even when compared to commerical DB, in
> > my tests the deafult install of Interbase outperfomed the default install
> > of Oracle 8i about 10X, tested on P166 with 96MB and PII400 with 192MB).
>
> This only occours if you don't know how to optimize Oracle. Oracle is
> *very* picky about *everything*. You need index tablespaces on separate
> disks from the data tablespaces, and yet another one for system
> tablespaces. You should also have one for archive logs, redo logs, and of
> course your temporary tables. Setting it to threading mode is also nice
> for connection pooling and to stop killing your machine under heavy load.
>
> That, and the machines you've quoted are in no way powerful enough for
> production Oracle databases, period. You should also run oracle on some
> kind of Solaris/Sun combo. Raw mount points direct to the actual disks is
> ideal, but loopback filesystems work just as well. Remember to cluster
> your raid into 4 - 6 arrays of 3+ disks, too. There is no such thing as a
> default Oracle install, because installing oracle on a single user machine
> with one disk and only a little ram (yes, anything under 512 is very
> little for Oracle) will make Oracle look like a piece of crap.
>
> The point about Oracle is that it *lets* you do all of those
> optimizations, and if you're good at it, it will outperform almost any
> other database you throw at it. Trust me on this one.
Well let me see,
1. I have several databases to choose from, Which give me the performance I
need.
2. I don't have to be a DBA to manage them, I don't have to use raids to get
performance and I don't have to split indexes between hard disks to get
adaquete preformence.
3. I don't a supercomputer and I can use them in moderate hardware for my
needs, and I don't have to dedicate plenty of RAM to them.
4. This databases are open-source and don't have linking problems. Anyone
tried to install Oracle 8.0.5 on Linux (patch-O-rama for Glibc). 8i is a
resource hog (JVM in the database, are they nuts ?) and i won;t touch it with
a stick,
5. I can expect this databases to work for me out of the box (out of the
install in this case)
6. All this databases are free and I can choose the one I want according to
the task I'm facing, without paying outrages licensing fee to Oracle, and
spending lots of money on unnedded hardware.
Isn't the choice obvious ? Why would anyone touch Oracle - I guess it is only
because of their hype and spin - much like some other company I won't mention.
BTW, I was in Oracle's OPP program for quite a while, but left it when 8i
came out, it was an overkill. (But I sure miss those Oracle parties, They
were outrages, or as one of their representives said to me, they had lots of
money the needed to spend).
OK, I'll stop now, I'm running out of air, I think I'm turning blue, Help !!
Help !! someone ? anyo.... ahhhhhhhhhh ^^^_^^_^___________________
--
Meir Kriheli
There's someone in my head, but it's not me - Pink Floyd
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
