- A thorough reworking of indexing to ramp up performance and minimize bottlenecks in searching and matching
- Several limitations inherited from the legacy code have now gone, such as the 252-byte limit on index size and the 30 Gb limit on table size
- A new interface for plugging in international character sets, including enhanced Unicode support, along with a number of new and corrected collations
- 64-bit platform support with released binaries available for AMD64 and Intel EM64T on Linux. Windows 64-bit builds are ready for testing and will follow in a sub-release
- An intense makeover of server security, including beefed-up password encryption and inbuilt protection for brute-force attack
- Support for SQL200x derived tables, including multi-level nesting and joining of subqueries
- EXECUTE BLOCK syntax to enable blocks of procedural SQL (PSQL) to be executed in dynamic SQL statements
- Explicit cursors in PSQL, also available inside EXECUTE BLOCK statements
- Optional WAIT lock conflict timeout, available as both a SET TRANSACTION argument and as a transaction parameter in the API
- All-new incremental backup capability
- Complete re-architecting of "serverless" local connection protocol on Windows to eliminate the inherent instability of the legacy IPServer protocol
- Fully completed implementation of the Services API on all platforms
News: Relational DB Firebird 2.0 Final released
Firebird 2.0, a relational DB based on code from Borland's InterBase from many years ago, has been released. Features of the release include:
- Posted by: Samyem Tuladhar
- Posted on: November 13 2006 08:58 EST
- Re: Relational DB Firebird 2.0 Final released by Damodar Periwal on November 13 2006 22:23 EST
- target group? by Timur Evdokimov on November 14 2006 06:43 EST
- Aparently Firebird is free by Adrian Neagomir on November 14 2006 07:42 EST
- Target group.... by Jacques Ledoux on November 14 2006 09:01 EST
- Aggregates in the WHERE Clause by P S on November 14 2006 12:41 EST
- Re: target group? by Matt Giacomini on November 14 2006 16:37 EST
- Re: target group? by Isaac Chan on November 15 2006 06:04 EST
- Re: Relational DB Firebird 2.0 Final released by John Hurst on November 14 2006 15:24 EST
Congratulations! Impressive list of new features! -- Damodar Periwal Software Tree, Inc. Simplify Data Integration
Last time I tried it with FireBird was back then in 2001, and I stopped when I realized that this database can't properly execute SELECT ... FROM mytable WHERE date_field = max(date_field) Despite there was an index on date_field, FireBird was not able to use it on aggregate function. So I dropped it in favor of MySQL. FireBird performance on large datasets (10+ million records) was also few times (!) worse than that of MySQL. And then again things like that - you need to execute SELECT COUNT(*) FROM mytable after DELETE FROM mytable to actually let deleted records to be removed. Now I still wonder who is the target group of this database. If I need open-source database that runs everywhere, I'd better off with MySQL for simple things and with MySQL MaxDB (former SAP DB) for the rest. What is the ultimate selling point of FireBird?
Apparently Firebird is free while MySQL is not although both are open source. "Firebird is completely free of any registration, licensing or deployment fees. It may be deployed freely for use with any third-party software, whether commercial or not." - http://www.firebirdsql.org/
Congratulations to the Firebird team. I have tried some RC release and was very pleased with them. I use Firebird/Interbase since over 10 years now in multiple projects small and large and have had only great satisfaction using it. This version is a major rewrite in order to get writ of these limits and it is normal that this cycle to be somewhat longer than other releases.
Last time I tried it with FireBird was back then in 2001, and I stopped when I realized that...My experience with Firebird is totally different than yours. I have projects where the size of tables well exceeds 10 million records and it certainly perform as fast as any comparable open-source or commercial products including MySQL. In one of these project, we even port a MySQL to Firebird to the great satisfaction of both clients and developpers (by the way, that was approximately in 2001). I guess the target group for Firebird users that builded up over the years was mainly composed of developpers who wanted a performant and stable product that fully supports transactions, stored procedures, be SQL compliant, totally free for open-source or commercial projects, multi-platform, small footprint, embedded version, etc. Again, bravo for a long awaited version developped by a team of people who spend their energies in the making of a great product. Jacques Ledoux
Aggregate functions in the WHERE clause aren't allowed in most SQL implementations, so I don't think that that should be held against any one DBMS. Any DBMS that allows them is actually the one that is in the wrong, and a subqueried expression like SELECT ... FROM mytable WHERE date_field = (SELECT max(date_field) FROM mytable) is the preferred syntax for expressing the equivalent query.
Last time I tried it with FireBird was back then in 2001, and I stopped when I realized that this database can't properly executeI don't think this is valid SQL and if mySQL allows it, then they are doing so as a shortcut.
SELECT ... FROM mytable WHERE date_field = max(date_field)
Despite there was an index on date_field, FireBird was not able to use it on aggregate function. So I dropped it in favor of MySQL.
Funny our testing of the two ended up being totally opposite of yours. Maybe you were running mySQL with transations turned off. In that case you may be right as our testing results required the use of transations and relationships.
FireBird performance on large datasets (10+ million records) was also few times (!) worse than that of MySQL.
Last time I tried it with FireBird was back then in 2001 ...In 2001, MySQL was a toy ...
I used Firebird 1.0.x and 1.5.x on several projects, going back to 1999 (I guess it was InterBase then). I've always found it pretty solid and capable, though I've never used it for anything very large. At least it implements a reasonable feature set for a relational database -- something MySQL in 2000 made no attempt to do. ;-) I think MySQL may be a little better now, but I've been turned off for life. The story of Borland ("Inprise"!) releasing InterBase as open source and then changing their minds is a sad and sordid one. Too bad for Borland. I wish all the best for the Firebird team going forward. John Hurst Wellington, New Zealand