Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!jtt From: jtt@tct.uucp (John Tombs) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Opinions on C-Tree and related products? Message-ID: <27ADAE15.3E99@tct.uucp> Date: 4 Feb 91 18:55:16 GMT References: <29809@usc> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 28 In article <29809@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > >Faircom does > C-Tree > C-Tree+ > R-Tree > D-Tree > Faircom Server > Faircom SQL Server > >What do you think of these products? We have based applications on c-tree and r-tree for 4 years; we froze our versions some time back so my information may be out-of-date, but we found c-tree to be stable, adequately fast (we had nothing to compare it with, so I can't say more than that), and easy to build into applications. r-tree had features built-in to support some pretty complex reports, but a few obscure bugs sometimes turned development into a trial-and-error nightmare. I think the basic software design was very good; and they did provide source. After working with Informix-SQL since then and reading this newsgroup, I appreciate the complexity of SQL databases and understand why the perfect one does not exist. I believe that Faircom have what it takes to build a competitive product, but we have fought shy of their SQL product, partly following received wisdom: "never buy version 1.0 of anything". -- John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT ,