Talk:Falcon (storage engine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Did Netfrastructure have a database engine? From their website, it's not obvious.

Netfrastructure was a company to build web framework around Firebird SQL server (ex-Interbase ex-ex-Groton RDBS) Jim Starkey (aka baad graay woolf) was one of core developers and founders of it. So, Netfrastructure worked closely with Firebird SQL team to integrate Web and RDMS, also founder of NEtfrastructure had deeep knowledge in Firebird SQL engine. Guess Falcon is a derivative of Firebird, just like Firecle was (Firebird SQL engine with SQL-frontend compatible to Oracle's dialect of SQL). If you would look into detailed article on features of Falcon engine (links in the article) - you would find all the classic Firebird properties (multi-version (and its result - almost never locking, no support for DIRTY READ), almost zero configuration needed, file per database (usual MySQL mantra is file-per-table, folder-per-database), always using indices, etc) Also notice Jim's presentation: "Falcon is NOT... a Firebird clone" ;-) But surely it is work based on the same ideas and experience. Also consider "Falcon is multi-version in memory and single version on disk" which is very contrary to true MVCC nature of Firebird.


I perceive the quote "It did better in several tests, worse in others" as quite unfair in favour of Falcon. While it is true that Falcon performed on the order of about 30% better in two tests, it was worse in every other test and pathetically failed a good number of them.

In the cases where it performed worse, InnoDB and MyIsam outperformed Falcon not merely by 20-30%, but by a factor of 5 to 500. Considering figures of 500 versus 30,000 qps, "better in several, worse in others" is not a very fitting description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Architecture Section[edit]

The Architecture section was a direct copy paste from

I have removed it for copyright violation. (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)