> >>I was very disappointed by Interbase/Firebird. It seemed to me like a
> >>MS-Access: a database-engine that works on regular files
> > What gave you that idea? Firebird (and InterBase of course) use
> > a at least 1 file per database, but that's all. Can you define
> > "regular files"?
> My idea of Firebird is the following:
> There a library that can access a file and use it as a database.
> that very much like using the MS-Jet-Engine which is the backend to
Actually, this is "Firebird Embedded". Indeed, a single DLL (with
some additional DLLs if you want additional character set support)
that acts like the engine. Firebird Embedded is single user.
> >>OK, there is a network-server component, but it really has nothing to do
> >>with an enterprise-DB.
> > There's a server side process waiting for incoming connections
> > just like with MySQL, MS SQL Server, Oracle etc etc...
> Well, the network-server seemed to me like an application that uses the
> library i mentioned above.
Not at all. It's the other way around: the embedded version is almost
the same as the server-side engine process, but wrapped into a library.
> It doesn't seem to me like a big application
> like MySql or MaxDB. In other words: Firebird seems to be light weight
Light weight it sure is. Very modest on memory requirements, for example.
A bit too modest sometimes :-)
>MySQL and MaxDB have a multi-threaded kernel that maintains its
> own cache, coordinates locks, etc.
> I don't think that Firebird's architecture is like that.
On the contrary, Firebirds architecture is exactly like that.
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL