As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am trying to choose between postgre and firebird databasses. The database will be installed on a windows 2003 server with asp.net 3.5. i don't want to use sql server because of price issues and I don't want MySQL I had a bad experience with it and the .net connector and the membership provider.
I've always been impressed with Postgres; it's traditionally had a more complete feature set (in terms of ACID compliance, support for advanced queries, etc.) than MySQL, it has solid Windows ODBC drivers, and its documentation scrupulously points out any areas in which it deviates from the SQL standard. (All databases, it seems, deviate in one respect or another, but Postgres is the only one I've seen that makes sure you know when you're doing so.) I haven't tried the usage scenario you describe, but I've had no problems running it on Linux and accessing it from both Windows ODBC and Linux clients.
I don't have any experience with Firebird; sorry.
I'm using firebird database since 1.0
I'm very happy with it
I'm using on windows and linux
Some time ago, I used to work with odbc. No problems and very easy
Easy instalation, very small maintenance, rocks
Dividing db in several files is an option, but I don't recomend you to do it
After server crashes (electric problem or full harddisk) the system continues working inmediatly without any maintenance
I have versión 2.1 on testing and 1.5 on production
I'm using flamerobin to manage both versions
Hellen's book is great to learn about firebird
I also tested and read about postgresql.
It looks a great db server
Since long time, they are using multigenerational records (as firebird before interbase before groton databases did since the begining)
On postgresql, now you need to vacued records (on firebird it is called sweep)
Someone told you it wasn't necesary on postgresql, but I don't thing so
postgresql has a better language. You can write your own funcions with this language (on firebird you have to write new functions on c, c++, etc...)
postgresql has more data types. In fact you have several of them.
You also have full search.
On postgresql you also have regular expresions (I think in where, and therefore with sustitution options). This funcionality will be ready on firebird very soon
In any case, I'm very happy with firebird and it evolucion.
Postgresql and firebird are improving and diferences bettwen them are smaller
Many of the comments comparing firebird and postgresql are copied from...
http://www.firebirdsql.org/dotnetfirebird/blog/2005/03/firebird-advantages-over-postgresql.html
this is an old comparation. I don't think postgresql driver on .net is not mature now
With firebird you cannot connect from one database to another (it will be possible in a short future)
Firebird is smaller and easer than postgresql, but it's also very good in performance, stability and low mantenaince
bye
I've been using Firebird for several years. Its been rock solid and I'm very happy with it. Excellent comprehensive documentation is available via Borrie's "The Firebird Book" & its updates. Awesome administration capabilities are available using IBexpert.
I've been working with PostgreSQL, Firebird, Oracle, MySQL, MSSQL more than 6 years ago and my preferred are Firebird and PostgreSQL. I don't like MySQL because Commercial License is not cheap, and MySQL lacks of some functions.
I you ask me about what is my preferred one between FB and Pg.... It varies about requirements and needs. I feel that Firebird works better when speed is a must. I've been working with very large databases environments and I have not had problems. PostgreSQL is better in web sites and internet applications developed in PHP, Python and Ruby, but I think that this will not be for much time. In the last months big companies are looking to FB as a very serious DB. I recommend you FB. Try it, give it a chance, you won't be disappointed.
We use Firebird since its birth. Actually we love this database :)
I love using Postgres - it's powerful, fast, reliable and extremely well documented. The PL/PgSQL language is about as powerful as you could conceivably require, and I can't think of a single serious problem I've ever encountered with it. Most problems tend to be user-created ones, and are resolved after digging through the documentation.
Provided you know a bit about "grown up" databases (i.e. not something like MS Access), or are prepared to learn, I'd wholeheartedly recommend Postgres.
Can't comment on Firebird because I haven't used it
Firebird + FreeadhocUDFs + IBExpert, and just programming.
we have 2 systems in production for 6 years
(20 domains, 200 tables, 50 views, 370 stored procedures, 600 triggers,
205 generators, 11, roles, etc, etc) and have been tested to migrate to PostgreSQL (only
test, we love Firebird).
In tables with traditional data types (integer, varchar, date, numeric, etc, etc.)
differences could be for one or the other, as appropriate,
but in stored procedures, Firebird is much more powerful than Postgresql,
much more simple and elegant.
Two or three years, any Linux distribution, not including Firebird, only Mysql and Postgresl.
Not for nothing today, but tradicionesles distributions (ubunutu / opensuse / fedora / centos, etc, etc) and
Firebird include in their repositories.
Postgresql do not say that is worse than Firebird, Firebird is not that much better than Postgresql.
But without hesitation I say that Firebird has nothing to envy to Postgresql, and in many ways is more powerful.
(sorry for my bad english)
They are both cool. However, one BIG advantage for Firebird is it's .net data provider. Good mature solution, vs buggy npgsql (or some paid Postgres drivers). So it it mostly to chose what db you are more familiar with or what are your developement team skills.
Both Postgres and Firebird are excellent databases.
I've been using Firebird for 8 years and it is really strong.
Check this link http://www.ib-aid.com/articles/item104 and see that Firebird is a pretty good database.
Postgres's .NET driver is not mature enougth, while firebird .net provider is even supporting entity framework!!
Firebird is wonderfull, solid, easy to maintain, install & small footprint (embedded version as well)
The only drawback: you have to do a backup and restore to eliminate deleted records physically.
So for a system that has to be 24/7/365 it is a huge limitation.it is not my case so no problemo.
PostgreSQL does not have that problem (but I have never used it).
A friend runs an entire shipping company with millions of transactions on PostgreSQL with linux servers & java and he is very happy.But the maintenance is more heavy than firebird.
Besides if you use delphi, Firebird is better suited.
I always worked with Firebird since 2005 writing application in Delphi, C# and ASP.NET. I never had a corrupt database in my projects. I never needed to work with another database.
Why Firebird instead of PostgreSQL?
Because Firebird is:
Easy to Install and Configure;
Very stable;
Lightweight (Firebird 2.5 Download:
6,4MB / Postgresql 9.0 Download:
47MB);
OpenSource;
Easy deployment (PSQL);
Crossplatform (Win32 / Win64 / Linux
x86 / Linux AMD64 / MacOS X / Solaris
/ HP-UNIX);
No need for DBAs;
Embedded engine;
Well. If you are using Firebird you dont need another Database. :)
We are using Firebird since 1.0v. It is stable, robust, many features out of the box and extremelly easy to install and mantain.
We develop using .Net and Delphi.
If you choosse FB, fell free to contact us if you need some tips.
Paulo Junqueira.
http://www.rt1.com.br
Most of the features are the same on both however I recommend Firebird
1. FB - supports multiple collation within a table
2. FB - more choices on mature drivers to work with
3. FB - connection managed by either Thread or Process depend on your use/setup
4. FB - embedded support
Not recommend
Stay away MS SQLExpress
A little Draw back
1. FB - blob handling is not so great if condition below are true
but if you move blob column(s) into separated table, then no issue with blob
a. massive data mining/manipulating
b. blob column(s) is/are defined with other data columns
Firebird Rocks man, see this link Firebird Advantages over PostgreSQL
Mature Windows support. Firebird is supported on Windows for a very long time and it's well tested. PostgreSQL supports Windows natively since 8.0. Still only a few months...
Mature ADO.NET provider. Npqsql (PostgreSQL ADO.NET provider) is still in beta. Firebird ADO.NET provider supports the embedded Firebird, services API (backup, restore, statistics, batch SQL execution...).
Embedded version. Embedded version (with 2 MB runtime and easy switching to a standalone server) seems to be one of the biggest advantages of Firebird.
Licensing. LGPL (Npgsql is covered by LGPL) seems to be less commercial-friendly than IPL (at least it is a much less clear language).
The Firebird open source database server wins a SourceForge Community Choice Award (in the "Best Project for Enterprise" category).
Bye.
Feature no 1 : Firebird required 0 Administration and is simpler to use than Postgresql
(think of sqlite like easy of use with oracle/postgresql like features)
2.Firebird does have Embedded mode and is fully multi threaded in 2.5
3.And yes Firebird is fully multithreaded where Postgresql is NOT
so we are ahead in this area with at least 2 or more years
"All backends running as threads in a single process (not wanted)
This eliminates the process protection we get from the current setup. Thread creation is usually the same overhead as process creation on modern systems, so it seems unwise to use a pure threaded model, and MySQL and DB2 have demonstrated that threads introduce as many issues as they solve. Threading specific operations such as I/O, seq scans, and connection management has been discussed and will probably be implemented to enable specific performance features. Moving to a threaded engine would also require halting all other work on PostgreSQL for one to two years."
I will update the post later with more features and links why does
http://mapopa.blogspot.com/2010/10/where-firebird-is-better-than.html
As others have pointed out, PostgreSQL is very good in terms of features, speed and reliability. However, after having developed an enterprise .Net application in it, I have to say that it does not mesh with Visual Studio as easily as SQL Server. Aside from that, SQL Server vs PostgreSQL is a little like the Windows GUI vs the Linux shell: one is easy to use, but the other is much faster and more powerful, ONCE you get used to it.
Apparently you can't use LINQ via the ODBC driver, and if you're developing a system using sometimes connected mobile devices, you lose the option of automatic synchronization that you would otherwise have with SQL Server and SQL Server Compact.
One branch of Firebird is an Oracle clone called Fyracle which is even able to run Compiere. On this page you can find reasons why authors chose Firebird over PostgreSQL, which might also help you with your decision. How successful this Oracle emulation is can be seen from this quote:
Firebird-Fyracle supports the major
Oracle-based ERP/CRM application
"Compiere" -- with virtually no change
to the Compiere code base. Fyracle has
supported Compiere since version
2.4.2b, which contained over 20,000 lines of PL/SQL. The current release,
2.5.3c, has moved most PL/SQL into stored procedures written in Java,
which is also supported by
Firebird-Fyracle.
Why don't you try SQL Express a scaled down version of SQL from Microsoft which is free to use.
Related
I've seen this question but the answers are simply not good enough. I've searched the web and could find a clear listing of the main differences.
I am particularly surprised to see contradictions in the above link, that holds only 4 short answers.
So the question is, beyond support, what are (all) the differences between Alfresco Community and Enterprise editions (for the current versions of course)?
Are there functional or technical features that available in the Enterprise edition, that are not in the community edition?
I find it strange that it's so difficult to get a clear list. Looking at the forums to find this answer is not a serious option from a business perspective.
Until now, I found this link to be useful, but it's from 2009.
In particular, I find the platform support interesting, with the community edition supporting only lamp stuff:
Linux
MySQL
Tomcat
OpenLDAP
Firefox
And the enterprise edition supporting:
Windows
SQL Server
WebLogic, WebSphere
AD/Kerberos
IE and Safari
Apparently, these features are only available in the enterprise edition:
JMX monitoring
Runtime admininstration: What's that exactly? And what's in the community edition then?
Runtime indexing consistency check and update: What's in the community edition then?
High performance and availability: How is that implemented and what's in the community edition then?
Storage policies
Open source and proprietary technology stack support: which ones exaclty? Which ones are supported in the community edition?
If anyone could guide me towards serious documentation about these differences, that would be great.
I also went through the wiki but could not find an answer to my questions in there.
differences between Enterprise and Community vary in detail from version to version and are mainly visible for administrators. We see or maintain both flavors of Alfresco in midsize to very large environments and I would say it's more or less a question of taste and budget what the best decision / edition is for you. Excellent skills in infrastructure and java are highly advisable for both editions to run Alfresco in production.
The technical differences are not as dramatic as not being able to provide very similar functionality for the users - so if you're actually in a decision you should focus on a good technical partner, the support services and maybe the fact that you only get official patches in the Enterprise subscription, not on the Community. BTW Alfresco Enterprise is not Open Source but this is not a real point of interest for most end users. You can access the code as a subscription customer but it is not public available/accessible.
The main differences in features are already named more or less:
Administration
Enterprise has more views and setting in the admin web GUI. In Community you can access most configuration only from the command line. This may be a restriction but in real live Administrators prefer the command line and scripting automation.
Enterprise lets you change some Alfresco settings during runtime (most settings still require restart). Some can be change in the GUI and more in the jmx interface. Also you're able to stop and start subsystems like the CIFS protocol server. We use this feature to switch a system in read only mode. This point is meant with "runtime admininstration". Community requires restart of the service for most configuration changes. It is possible to work around this by advanced scripting like groovy or by implementing modules.
Indexing
Runtime indexing consistency check and update is not a self healing functionality as expected. You will have to learn (at least for now) that you have to recreate the Alfresco index from time to time even in Enterprise environments and that it is better to focus on good strategies how to speed recreation or how to setup standby indexes instead of hunting failed indexing transactions using the check and update methods. For major document model changes you need to recreate the index anyway.
High performance and availability
This is mainly the cluster and replication functionality which is no longer available in Community. It's similar to MS Clusters: It's a lot, lot work for very view more availability since some concepts are missing. The price is high in terms of complexity and can end up in loss of robustness. Even with enterprise support it's a hard job to keep a alfresco cluster running - so you need very good arguments why to go this way. But of course: its possible and available!
High performance: There shouldn't be any difference and if - I'm very curious about the explanation.
Technology stack
The main difference is the database support. In the Community you only can choose between MySQL and Postgres (No Oracle or MS SQL for Community). All other technologies are independent from Enterprise or Community (AD, Kerberos, OS, Browser, ...)
Java Container: I believe over 95% of all Alfresco installations run in tomcat. That's the configuration which is documented, tested and scales. Using WebLogic or WebSphere gives you no added value except new challenges - quite the contrary: You have to solve most issues for yourself and can't benefit from others experience.
Storage policies: I'm not pretty sure and should check in 4.2.x if the Content Store Selector / Storage policies is no longer available in the Community, but it was there in the 3.x versions.
[Edit]: storage policies have been removed in Community 4.2.x:
NoSuchBeanDefinitionException: No bean named 'storeSelectorContentStoreBase' is defined
If there is a really need for this functionality someone may re-enable that feature by coding a module for Community.
Regards
This page explains the difference between the editions:
https://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Enterprise_Edition
This page is the canonical, comprehensive list of the differences.
If you are considering an Enterprise Subscription and you have a question that isn't answered by what you can find on that page, you should talk to your account rep.
Well, regarding JMX monitoring:
Runtime administration: Alfresco enterprise allows to perform certain actions on Alfresco subsystems without restarting the server. This allows you to be very fast during debugging/developing and also making changes in production environment. Also you can access the JMX interface that supports JMX Remoting.
There is no consistency check or update, until you restart the server (during the startup you have to validate/check/rebuild your indexes). There is an option in alfresco.global.properties (or the original repository.properties config file) for that. If you have some inconsistencies in the Alfresco Community index, you're gonna have a bad time xD.
Alfresco Enterprise has specific license for clustering your architecture, the Community edition doesn't support those systems. Replicate and cluster Alfresco is one of the main improvements in performance/scalability/availability you could achieve.
The storage policies allow you to use Content Store selectors in Alfresco Enterprise. You can manage a primary and a secondary file store, and map/connect these stores in your architecture. The Community Edition allows you only to use one content store at a time.
These include everything inside Alfresco (Spring Framework, Apache-Lucene/Solr, Tomcat, and so on), because with the Enterprise license you have also the full support with everything inside the Alfresco package. The difference is that the Community is based on daily builds, supported by community, and therefor not guaranteed. The Enterprise support helps you resolve many problems that you might encounter during developing and in production environment, not only Alfresco related, but also on some configurations on supported platforms (Windows/Linux), your web application servers, and so on.
Hope it helps.
I use Informix DBMS in all my web applications. My question has two parts:
Does the DBMS have a big effect on the performance of my applications
and if the answer is yes what about Informix and `MS SQL Server in this
issue?
I want some GUI tools to facilitate my job when writing queries,
creating database, relationships, ERD, etc. The Informix client
is so bad. There are no facilities at all. I want some tools
like SQL Server Management Studio
As a GUI tool for Informix you can use Aqua Data Studio from Aquafold. It also supports MS SQL Server.
As of the performance: it depends. How well is your Database design. Do you use indexes, is your query well-written, etc. etc. Very hard to answer your question, we just don't know enough.
To design a solution that would perform the best, one needs to know the nature of the application you are building. For example, if you are building a system that needs to process and compute large volume of data and computations can be distributed, a "traditional" relational database is not a good option no matter what vendor you choose. You would be better off with an option that supports sharding, Hadoop and will likely be based on some kind of NoSQL solution.
If you are sticking with RDMS and building something that has a lot of reads and not a lot of writes, go for a database that supports Snapshot Isolation which will allow your readers to not be blocked by writers.
Cost also plays into this - some RDMS systems are free, some are not. Your question is way to general to be answered specifically.
Aqua Data Studio is good but quite expensive. An open source tool SQL Workbench/J is also an effective tool for informix.
Informix have its own charm but i guess it should not be said that MS-Sql Server is slower or not good in performance. You may decide DBMS according to your nature of application. There are many techniques to optimize Database performance like, Applying Indexes/ Not too many Joins/ Queries can be optimize too/ Stored Procedure can also be used/ Multi-DBs level etc.
Once i need to develop Social Media site, i used MySQL in this project but only for POSTs i installed MongoDB.
Regards,
Salik
I have read this article from High Scalability about Stack Overflow and other large websites. Many large high traffic .NET sites such as plentyoffish.com, MySpace and Stack Overflow all use .NET technologies and use SQL Server for their database. In the article it says a source in Stack Overflow said:
As you add more and more database
servers the SQL Server license costs
can be outrageous. So by starting
scale up and gradually going scale out
with non-open source software you can
be in a world of financial hurt.
Why don't these sites use MySQL instead of SQL Server?
Adding into what AJ said... Remember Facebook also pays C programmers to hack up MySQL code and also PHP code to get things to really work "well" for the amount of traffic they get.
Facebook already made statements in the past and this year about having wished they made a better choice.
As a matter of fact, for coding they're now compiling their PHP down to C++ code using HipHopPHP and about 90% of their servers are running the C++ binaries instead of the PHP scripts.
Their MySQL database might save them a dime or two, but the costs to maintain it, scale it, etc. is extremely intense.
A product like Oracle however would really allow you to scale seamlessly compared to MySQL.
I have a site right now that uses a lot of bandwidth on my database, large number of queries, and the truth is, scaling is a pain in the neck with MySQL and their Clustering product isn't that great and requires a license. Oracle right now has the best "grid" database setup but the costs are insane there...
Also, I code C# as well.. Let me tell you it's MUCH easier to integrate enterprise level sites with SQL Server compared to MySQL.
I would guess that it's probably because it's really really easy to get started making a site with ASP.NET hooked into SQL Server. And for the sites you mentioned, speed to market was probably more important than getting the architecture "right" (not to say that SQL Server is or isn't the right choice - just that speed to market is the priority). Remember that a developer's job is to release software.
So long as one avoids using too many database specific features, it will be relatively straightforward to switch to a different database with moderate effort. But why bother unless your site becomes super-popular?
Edit: And if you become super-popular, you may even want to venture into the land of NoSQL.
While this doesn't directly answer your questions I really have to refute your comment about outrageous licensing costs. ALL ENTERPRISE grade commercial software comes with a high price tag because it has the VALUE for it. If it doesn't have that value, it wouldn't be a successful product.
SQL Server's pricing is extremely competitive and has a very substantially lower TCO than Oracle. Another reason a decision to use MS SQL Server would be made is that most shops that develop on the Microsoft stack are Windows Server shops. MS SQL Server is built specifically for Windows Server so it can integrate as flawless as possible with the operating system. Many other products are not primarily and solely developed for Windows Server so this results in feature differences and environmental bugs.
These enviromental issues can be further compounded with the fact that large scale shops will employ primarily system administrators that have long backgrounds in that specific stack so in a .NET shop most system administrators are all most fluent in Windows Server, having to support multiple operating systems becomes a large cost especially in the risk management side when you're a large scale business.
To repeat what others have said. I work in a corporation and money, so to speak, does not matter that much when it comes to these matters. Decisions are made on the basis of "What kind of support can we get from the vendor", "How many skilled people are in the market", "What are the vendors reputation", etc.
I think there are two distinct groups for adopters of MySQL or SQL Server.
Large websites that are privately owned that does not have additional financial resources. These websites will typically run MySQL. Naturally.
Large websites built by corporations. These sites will run whatever is the accepted database technology within the corporation. Money does not dictate this decision, but more of who can support this software and development.
No Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio. For real. A lot of stuff is done there instead of raw SQL that happens in Open Source software world.
Things are much easier to deal with when the technology stack is homogeneous.
If you want MySQL support for Linq-to-SQL, good luck. It's still very much immature. With SQL Server, it's a matter of drag and drop. Literally.
You can also conduct Database queries from within Visual Studio for SQL Server. I've never tried it for any other database, but I'm not convinced you'd be able to.
It's great to say 'Oh, MySQL is so much cheaper than SQL Server.' Yes, it is. But I'm not sure the integration costs are worth it; not to mention having to rely on Yet Another Vendor to provide support if something goes wrong.
You use what you know...
(IMHO) The Microsoft tool stack is brilliant. It works well, we learn with it and grow with it, as the technology grows. It becomes easier to use as you become accustomed to it (its quirks and idiosyncrasies).
MySQL is also a brilliant tool. It works, and works well. We could all have religious wars as to what tool is best, but remember it is just a tool to get a job done.
Now let's factor in the cost of the software - Plenty of Fish 2 years ago made $7M, do you really think they care how much their database/server software costs? SO is on BizSpark $0 cost for 3 years (that's got to hurt).
For the sceptics, FaceBook runs MySQL on/for 30K servers and MySQL Enterprise Unlimited Licences cost $40k so this is not necessarily cheap either.
I don't know about you, but for me when I make a ton of cash, I really won't care how much it "costs", because I am making more with it, than without it!
I would say because of the following:
Microsoft is very well integrated while used with Microsoft products ;
Though using SQL Server, a free Express edition is available and can be used to host sites ;
With the .NET Framework coming through, Microsoft gained a lot of terrain over its competitors in schools an so, thus making SQL Server a well known database engine ;
Microsoft products works better with other Microsoft products ;
There are two ways of licensing SQL Server, per client (CAL), and per server processors or something like that. For sites hosts, perhaps is there an advantage of using SQL Server this way ;
Other database engines such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, Firebird, etc. all have their syntaxic differences, thus making SQL Server TSQL somehow a wise choice as for the number of persons being able to interact with SQL Server more easily ;
There might be some other politic related reasons for using SQL Server over other less costly solutions.
I would like to mention that some are using SQL Server, yes, but they use SQL Server Express Edition. Though they are whether aware or not that publishing or commercialising a solution with SQL Server Express Edition makes, according to the EULA of Microsoft for this product, your solution a free solution as well, as the EULA states that you need to provide your solution to your customer, and your customer is free to share your commercial solution with whom who wishes because it is sat on SQL Server Express. Although this is stated, some continue to use SQL Server Express without informing their customers about this information. Most of common clients won't know about this and they will respect their contract with the solution's supplier.
Furthermore, as I think I have above-written, some don't care about the price, but they have political reasons for using commercial products such as SQL Server and other software products. There are some places where the money isn't the most important factor, but service after sale, etc. They want specialized engineers or support teams directly, not necessarily what offers MySQL-like communities.
Hope this enlights a bit.
It's just culture. People group themselves. It's natural. People who prefer open-source, will naturally choose LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP) for the same kind of project that people who prefer corporate support choose Microsoft IIS, Microsoft SQL Server and Microsoft .NET for. There is a good deal of human psychology involved in this, make no mistake about it. There is nothing prohibiting one from using IIS with PHP and MySQL, or Apache with Microsoft SQL Server, but the way it goes is as described above.
Shorter put, large sites do use either, but yes, not often the two you mentioned together.
I believe George has it on mark: "homogeneous".
Most of Microsoft's technologies are built to work together. There are direct hooks between .NET and SQL Server to provide additional functionality like cache management that just don't exist between .NET and MySQL.
IIRC, MySQL doesn't have built in cache management which is why Ehcache and memcached exist.
re Joshua's comment: "A product like Oracle however would really allow you to scale seamlessly compared to MySQL." Years ago, Sabre picked MySQL over Oracle for some high scale projects based on cost and feature set. AFAIK, it's still picked over Oracle unless you can prove through cost/benefit analysis why Oracle is the better choice for a project.
I think it really boils down to functionality, user knowledge base and interoperability.
Sometimes SQL Server is the better match, sometimes it's MySQL, sometimes it's Oracle.
Less compatibility issues when you single source.
MS SQL Server is the "default" database for ASP.NET apps (see LINQ to SQL, ADO.NET, ApplicationServices etc)
Immature .NET tools for other databases. For example, you don't have to worry about a feature or functionality not being supported if you stick with MS SQL Server, other databases might not have full support (e.g. DbLInq, etc.).
MS SQL Server is also free to get started, (SQL Server Express) and once you're ready to go public, it's hard to change the Data layer.
I'm in the process of writing an ASP.NET MVC2 site with MySQL as the backend (mainly due to licensing costs) I've implemented DbLinq, but it also means writing a custom Membership/Role provider, and general tweaking of the data layer. It's definitely doable, but it's not as simple as sticking with MS SQL Server. I'm also hoping to move the site over to Mono 2.7 (once it's released) running on a Linux server to sidestep the server licensing issues as well.
The real reason is people usually go with MS SQL Server as .NET comes from the same brand. For instance PHP people always prefer MySQL over other databases. It's all mind set and people don't want to take any risk.
Any large enterprise site isn't going to care about licensing costs that much. What they want is fast, reliable data access and access to company technical support. They also want something that can easily be partioned to scale and that is designed for huge databases. They also want the easy availablity of performance tuning specialists, datawarehousing and Business Intelligence specialists, database developers, and database administrators. SQL Server and Oracle both meet these criteria. I really don't see MySQL as having as many people qualified to design and monitor large systems. I am Not sure how it stacks up on the partitioning and scalibility though.
Well, for one thing there are other, better, free databases (e.g., PostgreSQL). For another, the Microsoft ecosystem is designed to suck you in, getting you to spend more and more with the guys from Redmond.
I see that the IronRuby team has documented using ActiveRecord in IronRuby with MSSQL - they indicate that some adjustments were required to the adapter.
In interview on 8/11/2009, Jimmy indicates a major drawback of IronRuby:
The main limitation is that IronRuby does not support any
of the C-based Ruby libraries
That indicates that the SQLite-Ruby library that depends on sqlite.dll is probably out of the question. However, in the same interview, he says:
For the database you can use SQLServer Express (which is free),
or any .NET based database, like the recent csharp-sqlite port.
That sounds promising, but I'm a bit overwhelmed on how to begin! How do I go about connecting Ruby's ActiveRecord to csharp-sqlite or where can I look for more guidance?
I found some more write-up on IronRuby and SQLite, but I may need some translation help?
The current solution is to port do_sqlite3 to use all .NET APIs. There are a couple ports
of SQLite to .NET, but none are widely used yet. For 1.0 we will have an ironruby-dbi gem
for using .NET based databases through the Ruby DBI API; so using SQLExpress and
SQLServer will work with an appropriate sqlserver adapter. I'm not sure if there is a
do_sqlserver adapter yet for DataMapper, but we'll leave that to the community for doing.
Does this imply that my technology stack could go something like: ActiveRecord uses SQLiteRuby, SQLiteRuby is tweaked to use ironruby-dbi (should be little change since this is the Ruby DBI API??) then ironruby-dbi has the smarts to work with a .NET based database such as c#sqlite. Of course I will need an adaptor to go between ActiveRecord and SQLiteRuby ... hopefully no change required there?
Sugggestions, Advice, Tips?
you won't be able to use activerecord as is.
You can either wrap the ADO.NET provider for SQLite or you can perhaps help with the ironruby-dbi project and provide a dbi adapter that handles sqlite correctly. From then on adding it to rails is easy as it would require replacing the connection with the dbi connection.
It is a work in progress though and at this moment most efforts have been around sql server, but I too would like to get sqlite working properly on IronRuby with rails.
Another approach would be to change the active record adapter for sqlite to work with the ADO.NET provider (that would probably require the least effort but won't help outside the rails community). I have a pretty good idea of what needs to happen to make it all work but I simply don't have the time to do all of these things, unfortunately.
Have you tried using the SQLite adapter? It might work out-of-the-box.
I haven't tried it personally though.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been developing in asp.net since its existence (also classic asp before that) and also I have been using SQL server as my back-end database.
After serious consideration, I now want to change the language I use. Considering the OOP capabilities of the .NET platform, what other languages do you suggest that I start learning instead of ASP.NET and why?
Also what should I use as a database? I have no experience in databases other than the SQL Server.
Django would get my vote.
Like you, I'd been using ASPNET since its creation and then a job forced me to use PHP. Then another. And another. I got to the point where 90% of my time was spent doing PHP and I didn't want to split my time between two completely different work-flows so I just went with it.
PHP, as you may or may not be aware, is a complete scrotum of a language when compared against the relative beauty of languages like C# or even VB.NET. And it's not getting better any way soon. Development frameworks mean you have to upload half-a-million files for each project and it all just feels unneccessary.
So about two months ago I started to look into alternatives. I use Linux now so I bump into Python quite a lot of the time. It looks pretty enough. It's always pretty well formatted (by design) and it has fairly excellent OOP techniques and opportunities.
Then I learnt about the Django ORM so I thought I'd make a quick site with some basic interactive features. I made a secret santa website for my girlfriend's family. Multiple forms, authentication, listing and detail pages and a splash of AJAX. Took me (a complete uber-novice) two days to get functional and the rest of the week to beautify (I'm a slow designer).
Other benefits include its superb built-in caching, a community that really knows how to program stuff, pre-made, reusable apps that you can just plug into your site and go, and python's easy_install and pip that make getting modules so simple. Oh and unlike ASPNET, it'll run on any OS which can make for considerable savings for personal projects.
I've since ported the rest of my PHP sites (and those that I have to maintain) to it and I'm about to start porting over my ASPNET projects. I'm happy.
Databases are pretty much a non-issue in Django. You pick one that's right for the size of your project, plug it in and the ORM handles all the DBIO.
I use SQLite for small-to-medium projects and a MySQL cluster for large projects.
I would use PostgresSQL for your database. It is by far the most feature complete of the open source databases. Though MySQL seems to be regarded as the best for speed. If cost is no object then oracle is obviously a big player.
In terms of language Java is going to be your best bet for similarity to the .Net languages. It is strictly typed and OO like C#. And is widely used in large enterprises, much like .NET.
Of course if you are changing just for the sake of change then maybe its better to switch to something more different. Ruby and Python are the big dynamic languages these days and will offer a different perspective.
Ruby on Rails seems to be very nice choice. Only it is a bit too different and bit too weird. But seems to be most effective, too. RoR is database agnostic, so the choice of database is not about syntax. You don't need to think about which database you use when writing application. You just use RoRs methods to access database and it will automatically wire it to the DB engine.
Or go with PHP and MySQL, it is proven and widely spread. I myself was using MS SQL Server first and switched to MySQL without problems. PHP is a bit dirty language, but it is comfortable to use and well supported and documented, too. If you decide to go this way, try ZEND framework, it solves lots of things and makes writing web applications much easier.
Use Mono, it runs on Linux, Mac and Windows. It runs my ASP.NET program faster in Ubuntu than when it is running on my development machine(Windows XP's IIS, though I haven't yet compared the speed when running on Windows server)
Languages supported on Mono: C#, Java, Boo, Nemerle, VB.NET, PythonNet, IronPython, Oberon, PHP, Object Pascal, Cobra, Component Pascal, Delta Forth, DotLisp, #Smalltalk
For database, use PostgreSQL, it is dubbed as the Oracle of the opensource database. It has many features suitable for enterprise-type system.
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
Why not take a look at ASP.Net MVC, you will capitalize on much of what you already know and is quite a bit different in its approach to websites. Just switching without a compelling reason or target in mind is probably not that useful, however it doesn't hurt to learn another language.
This site is built on ASP.Net MVC and Linq to SQL.
What is the reason for you leaving the .net scene?
A change of language may not fix the root cause.
I switched from LAMP to .net myself due to my job and then gradually in my hobby time to allow me to focus 100% on 1 language.
I switched from LAMP to .net myself due to my job and then gradually in my hobby time to allow me to focus 100% on 1 language.
You probably learned a few things from LAMP that you could apply to .NET. That's the best reason to explore other languages and frameworks.
Dynamic scripting languages can save considerable development time: no compilation, weak typing, and flexibility.
Personally, I love the flexibility of php. There are no abstract, inflexible, complex web controls to learn. I have complete control of my widgets because I can change the underlying code.
I didn't know php is still like a scrabbled scripting language... I don't want to go back to the old times...
No I need the shift to be as smooth as possible. From what I read, it seems ruby is going to be the choise... although Django seems interesting.
To be perfectly honest, the more I discover and experience in JavaScript / jQuery and DOM the less I use asp.net controls and related garbage on my pages. I have reached to a point where I know use ASP.NET for my project's back-end (objects and data classes to send and retrieve data) and standard HTML forms and controls on the front side, using jQuery for DOM manipulation and communication (thorugh ajax) with the server.
Having come to this point in my development career, I thought it would be a good idea to learn a new language that is faster than asp.net, that is not dependent on windows, and that is easier to learn.
I can then buy a macbook and relax :)
SQL Server Express has worked fine for me. I've used a lot of different databases with c#, but only mysql and binary files in production.
ASP.NET isn't a language. It's a framework upon which you can build web sites and web applications.
the reason is not job-centric.
Recently I realised I had enough of
bits-of-pieces that keeps me stuck
with microsoft. e.g. I want to buy a
MacBook but I can't since I need IIS
and VS etc.. (I know I can use windows
on a mac but what's the point)
Are you tired of Microsoft in general or ASP.NET specifically? Or is there a Cult you want to join that requires MacBook ownership? Or are you interested in LAMP or Java development? Do you still want to do web applications or are you more interested in desktop or mobile applications?
As far as databases are concerned, the most obvious alternative would be MySQL. Other options would be PostgreSQL or SQL Lite
I am creating a project called MPDA. It is a simple Dll and application that creates files that act as databases. It is aimed at .NET developers that want to use a database that does NOT impact on system performance on the system it is hosted on. Has no webside dependencies. If you have FTP access you can host it. No install required client or webside. Works on ANY platform with a file hosting ability. On drawback is it is accessible from .NET only.