On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:55:43 +0000
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I saw that yesterday. It's not too surprising, but there are so many
> factors to consider. It very much depends on what tests you run and
> under which conditions (scale, specs)... SourceForge's 2006 award for
> databases (IIRC that was indeed the category), Firebird was a
> runner-up. It's not a project to ignore either... choice is great and
> the new servers of my Web hosts provide choices other than MySQL,
> which I think is great. Same price ($0), different tradeoffs in
> performance (and maybe even security). Because of the layered approach
> of the stack and owing to standards, they should be also
> interchangeable (to a degree).
as far as interchangeability goes, i prefer to write applications that
a) use very standard queries
b) use procedures throughout
to handle crud operations.
to a point i dislike procedures are they're not standard on every
possible database type. i know most implement procedures, but not
writing for the lowest common denominator is very useful, a little extra
work upfront saves a metric ass load later on.
mysql has implemented significant features in the past year, but i'm in
two minds. i preferred it old skool.
Regards, Ed :: http://www.s5h.net
just another unix hacker
A spoonfull of sugar helps the medicine go down. A spoonfull of Vin
Diesel will eat through your intestines.