Database suggestion

#1

After lurking in comp.object and comp.databases I have come to the
conclusion that there are two distinct approaches to developing software
that involve data modeling:

1. Use UML and OOP to design and implement the model with a "dumb" (by
comparison) DB to do data store. This approach is typified by the Java
persistence mechanisms.

2. Use ORM and DBMS to design and implement the model with a "dumb" (by
comparison) front end to do the UI. This approach is typified by stored
procedures, triggers and constraints.

There may be other approaches, but these seem to be the main two. Also,
UML and ORM are just representatives of different toolsets for each
approach. I have spent most of my career in camp 1 but I now believe
that camp 2 is the correct solution to these types of problems.

Oracle, SQL Server and DB2 seem to be the big players in this arena.
However, I have no money to buy any of these products. MySQL and Access
are free but they look like they are just SQL front ends to ISAM files.
PostgreSQL and Firebird look like potential candidates, but I am sure
there are others that I have missed. The solution I am looking for can
run on either Windows or Linux with no preference on platform. It will
be handling hundreds or thousands of rows, not million or billions. My
use of the term row indicates that I am looking for a "relational" DBMS.
Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance,

Frank

#2

Frank <nobody (AT) nowhere (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

After lurking in comp.object and comp.databases I have come to the
conclusion that there are two distinct approaches to developing software
that involve data modeling:

1. Use UML and OOP to design and implement the model with a "dumb" (by
comparison) DB to do data store. This approach is typified by the Java
persistence mechanisms.

2. Use ORM and DBMS to design and implement the model with a "dumb" (by
comparison) front end to do the UI. This approach is typified by stored
procedures, triggers and constraints.

There may be other approaches, but these seem to be the main two. Also,
UML and ORM are just representatives of different toolsets for each
approach. I have spent most of my career in camp 1 but I now believe
that camp 2 is the correct solution to these types of problems.

Oracle, SQL Server and DB2 seem to be the big players in this arena.
However, I have no money to buy any of these products. MySQL and Access
are free but they look like they are just SQL front ends to ISAM files.
PostgreSQL and Firebird look like potential candidates, but I am sure
there are others that I have missed. The solution I am looking for can
run on either Windows or Linux with no preference on platform. It will
be handling hundreds or thousands of rows, not million or billions. My
use of the term row indicates that I am looking for a "relational" DBMS.
Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance,

Frank

I am prejudiced in favor of Firebird anytime it "fits" and in your
case I think it does.

Consider these points:
-- unrestricted free use, ie., GPL's, OSS, commercial, or proprietary
(or mattress padding)
-- code base has been running on Windows and *nixes for years
-- easy set up and maintenance (for a rdbms)
-- automatic recovery
-- platform independent backup/restore ,ie., backup on Win - restore
to *nix
-- small footprint, comes in an embedded version (fairly new, still
with wrinkles)
-- offers a good path from small dbs to one much larger than
anticipated
-- on Win, a nice set of design/admin tools available (Linux tools
about like the others)
-- emphasis on reliability more than benchmarking
-- not as well known/used as MySQL or PostGreSQL );- (

BTW, I also find it one of the easiest dbs to set up on both Win and
Linux, and it's quite easy to take it for a test spin to see if you
like it.

There are a number of products in particular cases better suited than
Firebird, but for all around use I find it indispensable.

If you're looking for the best fit for a particular project, I
encourage you to look around quite a bit -- even reconsider the need
for a rdbms.

hth,
prg
email above disabled

#3

P Gentry wrote:

Quote:

I am prejudiced in favor of Firebird anytime it "fits" and in your
case I think it does.

Consider these points:
-- unrestricted free use, ie., GPL's, OSS, commercial, or proprietary
(or mattress padding)
-- code base has been running on Windows and *nixes for years
-- easy set up and maintenance (for a rdbms)
-- automatic recovery
-- platform independent backup/restore ,ie., backup on Win - restore
to *nix
-- small footprint, comes in an embedded version (fairly new, still
with wrinkles)
-- offers a good path from small dbs to one much larger than
anticipated
-- on Win, a nice set of design/admin tools available (Linux tools
about like the others)
-- emphasis on reliability more than benchmarking
-- not as well known/used as MySQL or PostGreSQL );- (

BTW, I also find it one of the easiest dbs to set up on both Win and
Linux, and it's quite easy to take it for a test spin to see if you
like it.

There are a number of products in particular cases better suited than
Firebird, but for all around use I find it indispensable.

If you're looking for the best fit for a particular project, I
encourage you to look around quite a bit -- even reconsider the need
for a rdbms.

hth,
prg
email above disabled

Thanks for the reply, it does help. I was leaning towards Firebird over
Postgres but I wanted to get some people's practical input. I want to
use and RDBMS because I want to use ORM to design the data store and the
tool I have requires an RDBMS.

Firebird is at 1.5 RC7, is this stable enough?

Frank

#4

nobody (AT) nowhere (DOT) net says...

Quote:

Thanks for the reply, it does help. I was leaning towards Firebird over
Postgres but I wanted to get some people's practical input. I want to
use and RDBMS because I want to use ORM to design the data store and the
tool I have requires an RDBMS.

Firebird is at 1.5 RC7, is this stable enough?

It appears to be very stable. There is talk of making it *_the_* release
RSN.

Paul...

Quote:

Frank

--

plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com

C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro

Please do not top-post.

#5

Paul wrote:

Quote:

It appears to be very stable. There is talk of making it *_the_* release
RSN.

Thanks for the input. I appreciate all the replies. Now to download some
PDFs from firebird.sourceforge.net...

Frank

#6

Frank schrieb:

Quote:

Paul wrote:

It appears to be very stable. There is talk of making it *_the_*
release RSN.

Thanks for the input. I appreciate all the replies. Now to download some
PDFs from firebird.sourceforge.net...

Frank

You'll find more documentation here

http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?a=...e=ibp_download

The Quick Start Guide is very helpful

Then download the full InterBase 6.0 Documentation (further down on that page)

Most of it is still valid for FB 1.5 and is a very good help

I think somewhere on the site is also a document describing the
differences/new features between IB and FB 1.5

Thomas

#7

Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater (AT) gmx (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

Frank schrieb:
Paul wrote:

It appears to be very stable. There is talk of making it *_the_*
release RSN.

Thanks for the input. I appreciate all the replies. Now to download some
PDFs from firebird.sourceforge.net...

Frank

You'll find more documentation here

http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?a=...e=ibp_download

The Quick Start Guide is very helpful

Then download the full InterBase 6.0 Documentation (further down on that page)

Most of it is still valid for FB 1.5 and is a very good help

I think somewhere on the site is also a document describing the
differences/new features between IB and FB 1.5

Thomas

From your comment, a question: is Firebird the former
BORLAND InterBase product?

If so, I would be VERY interested. (IMHO multiversioning is about the
best approach to access control in a RDBMS.)

Ed
(Guess I better follow the link you provided.)