Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

[comp.databases.ms-sqlserver removed from Groups, not intersted in windows versus unix holy war]

Erland Sommarskog <sommar_at_algonet.se> wrote in message news:<Xns94E7EB1BB3781Yazorman_at_127.0.0.1>...
> Dmytri Kleiner (quirk_at_syntac.net) writes:

> The fact that you may found Windows a terrible operation system is
> of course completely irrelvant to the discussion.

That it is terrible is irrelevant, yes, that your application is tied to it is relevent.

> If it wasn't clear: we offer our customers a product, and they are not
> only tied to the DBMS and operating system, they are just as well tied
> to our product.

Which would be a better product if it were not tied to a particular OS at the very least, and, if possible, not to a particular database either.

Oracle or Sybase, at least run on several OSes. Not to mention PostgreSQL and Firebird. One of these would certainly be a better choice than MS SQL, again, not that MS SQL server is particularly bad, it's not, part of was writen by Sybase . It's that it traps you in Windows.

> As for the platform, the customers knows what they get when they buy
> our system. If they don't accept Windows, they are not likely to go
> for us either.

Good comanpies educate there clients, bad companies take advantage of their ignorance.   

> > I would say you made it quite clear that your basic message was that
> > it would be folly to do what I was suggesting,
>
> Yes, it would be a folly to do so out of principle always.

Ah, thw word 'always' -- after duress, some qualification!

I have never recomended doing anything always, only given some good advice.

> Sometimes
> it may be necessary, sometimes you are better off tying yourself to
> one single platform.

There are always exceptions to all rules of thumb, however, in the case of data abstraction, only extream performance concerns are generaly a good enough reason, and then, if your application is so specialized that abstraction is not workable, you are _usualy_ better off using something for wich you have source code.

> > It is not, as I've said, it can be as simple as writing a wrapper
> > function around your data access.
>
> Yes, if you build your system with all logic in a middle layer. Which
> often can result in serious performance problems, because a lot of
> data has to travel forth and back over the network. We have a lot of
> the business logic in stored procedures, and we have also found that
> this works best.

try this:

• create a wrapper around the execute binding, that way your application can at least execute stored procured on any backend that supports them.
• use standard syntax as much as possible.
• issolate the use of non standardized syntax in as few procedures as possible.

How difficult is that?

> > Not as expensive as having the system itself obsoleted by an obsoleted
> > dependency or the inabilty to get support for a dependency due to a
> > licencing dispute.

> Well, my company has worked this system since 1992, and nothing close
> to that has happened yet.

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'. Received on Thu May 13 2004 - 07:10:23 CDT