Comment Re:InterBase of course. Why the FUD? (Score 1) 132
You cannot be serious! Either you are deliberately trying to trash the product and/or you write extremely poor code.
Oracle is certainly the leader for performance, especially when talking about *huge* databases, that is not in doubt.
But Interbase is still in the same *league* with Oracle and all other real RDBMS products. As example, a fully tuned MSSQL7 system will slightly outperform IB for selects (better optimization, IB *can* use further improvement here), but for heavy transaction uses, IB blows away MSSQL with faster inserts/updates/deletes and, because of optimistic locking, can outperform in selects too in many of these kinds of situations.
Your comment about the 2 gig limit confirms you didn't read even the basic material for managing IB, 2 gig is indeed the limit *per file* and this is to accommodate Windows (since IB is multiplatform) however, a single IB database can consist of up to 65535 physical files. That works out to 1.3421568e+14 (which I believe is 134 terabytes). Of course at this limit, I'm sure performance *would* be horrendous, but I don't think that is a valid concern for the vast majority of applications.
Oracle is certainly the leader for performance, especially when talking about *huge* databases, that is not in doubt.
But Interbase is still in the same *league* with Oracle and all other real RDBMS products. As example, a fully tuned MSSQL7 system will slightly outperform IB for selects (better optimization, IB *can* use further improvement here), but for heavy transaction uses, IB blows away MSSQL with faster inserts/updates/deletes and, because of optimistic locking, can outperform in selects too in many of these kinds of situations.
Your comment about the 2 gig limit confirms you didn't read even the basic material for managing IB, 2 gig is indeed the limit *per file* and this is to accommodate Windows (since IB is multiplatform) however, a single IB database can consist of up to 65535 physical files. That works out to 1.3421568e+14 (which I believe is 134 terabytes). Of course at this limit, I'm sure performance *would* be horrendous, but I don't think that is a valid concern for the vast majority of applications.
