MS SQL Server vs Oracle vs DB2 (&Sybase too)
leebert
> I want to use Oracle as my database server. My lead
> wants to use SQL Server as the database server. The project
> is a Web Integration project with the database. We have to
> use the Database extensively. So I want to know the
> drawbacks of SQL Server over Oracle in features pertaining
> to performance/cost.
Oracle & MS SQL 7 are in a different league.
I can speak to DB2 vs. SQL Server 7. DB2 & Oracle are in the same league, whereas Sybase & MS SQL are fighting siblings. I work with all three: DB2, MS SQL 7
& Sybase.
My experience:
SQL Server is *easier* out of the box than DB2.
SQL server uses Dynamic SQL more efficiently. You'll need to write prep'd or static SQL in DB2 to get the same response time on queries.
SQL Server will be *harder* to fine-tune b/c of the limitations of Wintel trap it in a 2nd-rate server OS (even w/ W2K's improvements): Linux / Lintel isn't
even a choice for MS SQL 7. There are some things I can do with DB2 on both NT & Un*x that you can never dream of w/ MS SQL 7.
SQL Server 7 has broken the following: OUTER JOINS on VIEWS (MS deprecated this from 6.5, claiming ANSI standard) & 'abort tran on log full.' You can
force connections from DB2 by monitoring the log traffic.
DB2 has a smarter optimizer.
DB2 is approx. the same price as SQL Server on Wintel.
DB2 is faster and more capable of handling heavier loads.
DB2 (on NT 4) allows you to utilize more RAM than 2 Gig.
DB2 is *very* flexible b/c of Java, table functions, object-relational ablities & solid SQL 92+. MS SQL is stuck w/ Transact SQL & MS's antipathy towards
Java. The world waits while MS fights within itself on what to do with MS SQL & Java (aka a modern stored procedure language).
You'll need to get MS SNA Server ($1K corporate, $150 gov't) to get a stable OLE-DB driver for DB2 if you are going to use ADO.
SQL Server's Scheduler / SQL Agent MAPI interface has caused us lots of grief, never mind it's designed for single-developer -cum - dba -cum- NT-admin.
MS barely documents, if at all, their kernel-level patches on SQL Server. We've seen *major* optimizer bugs fixed (query missed pages) in SP1 that MS
*NEVER* documented as fixing. IBM documents *EVERYTHING* and is very open about DB2. MS scares me as a vendor.
SQL Server's security model allows NT Admins to take over your server(!) even if you prefer SQL Server authentication, b/c you will need tracing to work
& that only works thru NT domains.
SQL Server will start up just by a remote user clicking on a GUI object in the Enterprise Mgr (totally unacceptable for maintenance situations).
SQL Server's & Sybase's xp_cmdshell is a very convenient equiv. of rsh (remote shell).
As for comparing DB2 relative to Oracle:
Oracle is reknown for higher admin effort than DB2.
Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
DB2 is currently faster than Oracle (last benches I've seen)
Comparing Oracle vs. MS SQL, Sybase & DB2.
Oracle's row-versioning is way cool: readers never block writers and writers never block readers (ala Interbase).
Oracle is spoken of as a very difficult vendor.
There are more vendors supporting Oracle & MS SQL Server. But PeopleSoft drop-kicked Oracle as strategic partner and is moving over to IBM DB2, which IMO,
speaks volumes.
MS SQL has come a long way from the 6.5 daze. SQL2K sounds like a good step in keeping up with the other vendors.
SQL Server will get in your way once you learn how to DBA the thing. Once you get DB2's learning curve out of the way, you'll be amazed what you can do with
it.
/leebert
Davide Bianchi
licence for each CLIENT accessing the database in an Intranet environment,
this means that if you have 1000 users, you need 1000 licences (!!!!).
> Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
What ???? The last time I saw prices, Oracle was around 250$, how DB2 can be
cheaper ?
Davide
DODO
leebert <*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
<392E6F5D...@mindspring.com>...
>Meghana wrote:
>
>> I want to use Oracle as my database server. My lead
>> wants to use SQL Server as the database server. The project
>> is a Web Integration project with the database. We have to
>> use the Database extensively. So I want to know the
>> drawbacks of SQL Server over Oracle in features pertaining
>> to performance/cost.
>As for comparing DB2 relative to Oracle:
>Oracle is reknown for higher admin effort than DB2.
>Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
>DB2 is currently faster than Oracle (last benches I've seen)
>
leebert,
The last tpc tests show MS SQL with double performance and half price
against the next in line, Oracle 8.i. No DB2 in sight.
DOM
Larry
IBM hasn't run that benchmark yet.
Larry
Davide Bianchi wrote:
> Pay attention also to the client licence fee. I remember that MS want a
> licence for each CLIENT accessing the database in an Intranet environment,
> this means that if you have 1000 users, you need 1000 licences (!!!!).
>
> > Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
>
wildpony
robust solution maybe one should check out Informix
DODO
DOM
Larry wrote in message <392E81C8...@us.ibm.com>...
>That may simply mean that IBM elected not to run that benchmark, or that
>IBM hasn't run that benchmark yet.
>
>DODO wrote:
>
>> leebert <*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> <392E6F5D...@mindspring.com>...
>> >Meghana wrote:
>> >
>> >> I want to use Oracle as my database server. My lead
>> >> wants to use SQL Server as the database server. The project
>> >> is a Web Integration project with the database. We have to
>> >> use the Database extensively. So I want to know the
>> >> drawbacks of SQL Server over Oracle in features pertaining
>> >> to performance/cost.
>>
>> >As for comparing DB2 relative to Oracle:
>> >Oracle is reknown for higher admin effort than DB2.
>> >Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
Chad
a web server you can buy an Internet Connector license for SQL Server
and this allows for unlimited connections to the database server.
On another note, I feel like SQL, Oracle, and DB2 all have their place. The
time
it takes to develop good application and db design is more important than
which
DBMS you use. SQL is definitely the best platform in the Intel arena...
you'd be
crazy not to seriously consider SQL Server for any application (even if you
want
your web server to run on a Unix box). SQL 7.0 is a real database.. 6.5
really
wasn't that great, but SQL 7.0 (and especially the upcoming SQL 2000) will
do
anything you need it to do. You get replication, OLAP services and a number
of
other freebies that cost big bucks if you buy Oracle (not sure about DB2 --
I don't
know what they include). It is no brainer..
"Davide Bianchi" <davide_...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:8glsk6$1imtl$1...@fu-berlin.de...
Norris
> Meghana wrote:
>
>> I want to use Oracle as my database server. My lead
>> wants to use SQL Server as the database server. The project
>> is a Web Integration project with the database. We have to
>> use the Database extensively. So I want to know the
>> drawbacks of SQL Server over Oracle in features pertaining
>> to performance/cost.
>
>
> I can speak to DB2 vs. SQL Server 7. DB2 & Oracle are in the same league, whereas Sybase & MS SQL are fighting siblings. I work with all three: DB2, MS SQL 7
> & Sybase.
>
> My experience:
>
> SQL Server is *easier* out of the box than DB2.
> SQL server uses Dynamic SQL more efficiently. You'll need to write prep'd or static SQL in DB2 to get the same response time on queries.
> SQL Server will be *harder* to fine-tune b/c of the limitations of Wintel trap it in a 2nd-rate server OS (even w/ W2K's improvements): Linux / Lintel isn't
> even a choice for MS SQL 7. There are some things I can do with DB2 on both NT & Un*x that you can never dream of w/ MS SQL 7.
>
> SQL Server 7 has broken the following: OUTER JOINS on VIEWS (MS deprecated this from 6.5, claiming ANSI standard) & 'abort tran on log full.' You can
> force connections from DB2 by monitoring the log traffic.
>
> DB2 has a smarter optimizer.
> DB2 is approx. the same price as SQL Server on Wintel.
> DB2 is faster and more capable of handling heavier loads.
> DB2 (on NT 4) allows you to utilize more RAM than 2 Gig.
> DB2 is *very* flexible b/c of Java, table functions, object-relational ablities & solid SQL 92+. MS SQL is stuck w/ Transact SQL & MS's antipathy towards
> Java. The world waits while MS fights within itself on what to do with MS SQL & Java (aka a modern stored procedure language).
> You'll need to get MS SNA Server ($1K corporate, $150 gov't) to get a stable OLE-DB driver for DB2 if you are going to use ADO.
> SQL Server's Scheduler / SQL Agent MAPI interface has caused us lots of grief, never mind it's designed for single-developer -cum - dba -cum- NT-admin.
> MS barely documents, if at all, their kernel-level patches on SQL Server. We've seen *major* optimizer bugs fixed (query missed pages) in SP1 that MS
> *NEVER* documented as fixing. IBM documents *EVERYTHING* and is very open about DB2. MS scares me as a vendor.
> SQL Server's security model allows NT Admins to take over your server(!) even if you prefer SQL Server authentication, b/c you will need tracing to work
> & that only works thru NT domains.
> SQL Server will start up just by a remote user clicking on a GUI object in the Enterprise Mgr (totally unacceptable for maintenance situations).
> SQL Server's & Sybase's xp_cmdshell is a very convenient equiv. of rsh (remote shell).
>
> Oracle is reknown for higher admin effort than DB2.
> Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
> DB2 is currently faster than Oracle (last benches I've seen)
>
> Oracle's row-versioning is way cool: readers never block writers and writers never block readers (ala Interbase).
> Oracle is spoken of as a very difficult vendor.
>
> There are more vendors supporting Oracle & MS SQL Server. But PeopleSoft drop-kicked Oracle as strategic partner and is moving over to IBM DB2, which IMO,
> speaks volumes.
>
> MS SQL has come a long way from the 6.5 daze. SQL2K sounds like a good step in keeping up with the other vendors.
Now I can create multiple running SQL2K instances on one PC. Is it a
drawback?
>
> SQL Server will get in your way once you learn how to DBA the thing. Once you get DB2's learning curve out of the way, you'll be amazed what you can do with
> it.
>
> /leebert
>
>
>
wildpony
> > There are more vendors supporting Oracle & MS SQL Server. But PeopleSoft drop-kicked Oracle as strategic partner and is moving over to IBM DB2, which IMO,
>
> >
> > /leebert
well if peoplesoft frop kicked oracle as a strategic partner maybe they should update their website
Oracle
IBM
Informix
M$
NCR
are all listed as partners
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.cooper.com.hk
Neil Pike
> Pay attention also to the client licence fee. I remember that MS want a
> licence for each CLIENT accessing the database in an Intranet environment,
> this means that if you have 1000 users, you need 1000 licences (!!!!).
Not true. You could have the server set-up in per-server mode. In per-seat mode you would need 1000.
>
>
> > Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
>
> What ???? The last time I saw prices, Oracle was around 250$, how DB2 can be
> cheaper ?
> Davide
>
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
(Please reply only to newsgroups)
SQL FAQ (428 entries) see
forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps (sqlfaq.zip - L7 - SQL Public)
or www.ntfaq.com/sql.html
or www.sql-server.co.uk
or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
ttrivedi
No flames yet?? Wow we are all SOOOOOO professional..
Tapan
DODO
siuhu...@my-deja.com
im curious, you seem to lump sybase and ms as one system in the
beginning of your comment and then dont refer to sybase at all after
that. now i am primarily a ms and sybase dba and i dont view them as
the same from an rdbms perspective. sybase over the past few years has
been very agressive in giving you options to overcome some performance
problems with table partitioning, parallelization, etc. ms hasnt done
that ( not sure about 7 tho- im still learning that one). also ms 7
doesnt seem to give you a lot of knobs to turn from their gui ( or at
least i cant find many ).
your comment about oracle reader writer blocking is right on. it is
cool. however from a performance standpoint the tpc site consistently
shows oracle is much slower than sybase in the tpc-c benchmarks for what
its worth. feature wise sybase seems to be behind oracle. architectually
i am not sure if they have solved the scalability issues and parallel
server is the one thing i think that makes a big difference with oracle.
i know that oracle 7 was still mostly a rule based optimizer and were
still trying to fix their cost based one. kinda lost track of 8 so dont
know if oracle has an efficient optimizer yet.
cant really talk about db2. went to a dba class at ibm here in nyc and
the instructor always answered my questions as 'that is beyond the scope
of this class' and never really talked architecture so all the detailed
'this is how you fix this problem' was over my head and out the door the
next day.
dave
In article <392E6F5D...@mindspring.com>,
> Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
> DB2 is currently faster than Oracle (last benches I've seen)
>
> Comparing Oracle vs. MS SQL, Sybase & DB2.
> Oracle's row-versioning is way cool: readers never block writers and
writers never block readers (ala Interbase).
> Oracle is spoken of as a very difficult vendor.
>
> There are more vendors supporting Oracle & MS SQL Server. But
PeopleSoft drop-kicked Oracle as strategic partner and is moving over to
IBM DB2, which IMO,
> speaks volumes.
>
> MS SQL has come a long way from the 6.5 daze. SQL2K sounds like a good
step in keeping up with the other vendors.
>
> SQL Server will get in your way once you learn how to DBA the thing.
Once you get DB2's learning curve out of the way, you'll be amazed what
you can do with
> it.
>
> /leebert
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ji...@my-deja.com
with various database products.
What is so good in Oracle, which can't be done in DB2 is my question.
DB2 is less expensive compared to Oracle. It is truely scalable and
supported on many platforms.
Considering SQL Support, Sybase is much better compared to Oracle and
DB2.Especially the SQL based stored procedure is good and comes handy.
temp database is very handy to resolve many big quiries. Updates are
powerful with joins. No other database is that powerful as sybase.
Replication concept is much better in Sybase than other databases.
However Db2 ver 7 come with much powerful SQL support and refined
database concepts.
If it is question of performance and demanded resources both suck
equally. In scalability both are equally good. Reliablity, I have
never had an instance of crash of database for past 3 years with DB2.
When giving out the information, I mean documentation both are bad.
Oracle pretends they are the self appointed guardian of the database
technology. Often you find other methods are wrong and What Oracle does
is the correct.
DB2 tools and documentation sucks. Control center is a pain to work
with, the gears will never stop. ambiguous error messages are common.
There is a tool in DB2 called db2trc, try that is a joke. You get every
info except what you need. Very prominent with IBM products is, words
like "Not Supported in this platform". db2set is a command with which
you set env variables. This can set 100+ parameters. No where in the
manual it is consolidated and listed.
You will end up shelling out more $ to get support than the product
cost. This is just because the proper information is not contained in
the manuals. I am not sure, whether is the modern business strategy. It
is frustrating to waste time searching the information. This 100% true
for Oracle as well.
Atleast you have some thing to work and find some bugs in other
databases. Oracle, That is not the case. If you are not able to some
thing in Oracle, that means it is not database technique. it is always
not oracles defect, It is only your poor understanding of database
technique. You shouldn't be surprised If they ask to change either the
machine or the DBA. Oracle is the real pain. Oracle survives, Just
because people worked in Oracle never worked with other databases, and
their good business policy to introduce it at college level as model
for database. As a Student they get hands on and try, rather instigate
their offices to go with Oracle insted of learning much better database.
Nothing compares to Microsoft products for help information and tech
support. Even before the product is released, 100 books and reviews are
in market.
All are equally competent in releasing the product with bugs.
Sybase is a single OR gate. Either it will work or crash the server.
deadlock was very dominant bug often requested to attach buffer pools /
cache attachments as solution. At times you may end up with having
entire database in memory than in Disk. It was rediculous and was a
basic mistake, as to get dead lock you don't have to have transaction.
two simple insert / update would result in dead lock. Hope it is fixed
in the latest release, I didn't get an opportunity to verify.
Fortunately I didn't have Opportunity to work with MS SQL server. Is it
not good? Am I not saved from some pain?
It is really fun to work with database products.
In article <8gmjna$l8p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
leebert
> > Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
>
> What ???? The last time I saw prices, Oracle was around 250$, how DB2 can be cheaper ?
The server license. The per-seat costs are additional.
/l
leebert
> The last tpc tests show MS SQL with double performance and half price against the next
> in line, Oracle 8.i. No DB2 in sight.
First of all, I don't which TPC you are referring to: TPC-C, D or H.
TPC-C is fine-tuned OLTP, and fine-tuned OLAP. No heavy ad-hoc OLAP. OK for about 90-95%
of OLTP environments.
TPC-D is a step in the right direction, but again, critics have cited TPC-D as too easy a
hurdle. Again 90-95% of market.
MS had published a result using giganet (www.giganet.com) switched interconnect between a
farm of NT servers. NT was 'clustered' via DB2 clustering. MS & Giganet claimed it was the
fastest NT-based sol'n ever. AFAIK, until SQL2K goes GA, DB2 & Oracle are the only vendors
capable of delivering GA production clustered systems on Windows.
/l
leebert
> > MS SQL has come a long way from the 6.5 daze. SQL2K sounds like a good step in keeping up with the other vendors.
>
> Now I can create multiple running SQL2K instances on one PC. Is it a
> drawback?
Good question. Dunno.
Can the Wintel box handle the additional task mgmt w/out too great a performance cost?
/l
leebert
wildpony wrote:
> leebert
>
> > > There are more vendors supporting Oracle & MS SQL Server. But PeopleSoft drop-kicked Oracle as strategic partner and is moving over to IBM DB2
>
> well if peoplesoft frop kicked oracle as a strategic partner maybe they should update their website
I should have phrased that as "strategic platform."
Peoplesoft dropped Oracle for DB2.
It made big news in the past 2 months.
/lee
leebert
> sybase over the past few years has been very agressive in giving you options to overcome
> some performance problems with table partitioning, parallelization, etc. ms hasnt done
> that ( not sure about 7 tho- im still learning that one). also ms 7 doesnt seem to give
> you a lot of knobs to turn from their gui ( or at least i cant find many ).
> feature wise sybase seems to be behind oracle. architectually
> i am not sure if they have solved the scalability issues
You are correct.
My problems w/ Sybase, in general, stem from our experience w/ 11.9.2. Parallelization has
worked against us. We've had to turn it off. Named cache mgm't has problems. Right now, w/
11.9.2 we are maxxed at about 3 Gig. RAM.
Other beefs about Sybase... Hot spots on tables w/ lots of inserts, too easy loose the
segment placement and striping on tables. Outer join syntax is still proprietary. Changing
locking from page to row is a better way to reorg than REORG.
Sybase 12 hopefully scales better, but by then, we'll probably be looking at simplifying
our environment down to MS SQL & DB2.
> your comment about oracle reader writer blocking is right on. it is
> cool. however from a performance standpoint the tpc site consistently
> shows oracle is much slower than sybase in the tpc-c benchmarks for what its worth.
Interbase, which pioneered row-versioning in RDBMSs, suffers admitted overhead from row
versioning.
> and parallel
> server is the one thing i think that makes a big difference with oracle.
> i know that oracle 7 was still mostly a rule based optimizer and were
> still trying to fix their cost based one. kinda lost track of 8 so dont
> know if oracle has an efficient optimizer yet.
db2's optimizer is cost-based & from many accounts, the best in the industry. it's so
good, in fact, that it'll slow down your simple queries, so you have to detune it from
using the higher heuristics.
DB2 has some legacy stuff that is vexxing, like 8-character system names in packages,
stored procedures, etc. Ver. 7 will fix those.
But DB2's file-based log mgmt is the simplest & most fool-proof I've seen for managing
heavy throughput in the tran. log. Our data collection project wouldn't work on Sybase or
MS SQL - they'd be constantly dumping the tran. log. But with DB2, a tran. log backup is
inherent to the design, requiring no "dump transaction."
/lee
leebert
> Fortunately I didn't have Opportunity to work with MS SQL server. Is it
> not good? Am I not saved from some pain?
Yes. MS rewrote the kernel. But MS broke outer joins on views, and took out 'abort tran on
log full.'
The Transact-SQL parser is still Sybase's. Still has the same parser bug for
block-comments w/ "go" statements. Hilarious. MS must still be paying Sybase license fees.
However, yes, I'd say that overall MS SQL 7 w/ SP 1 is more stable, IMO, than Sybase on NT
or AIX. But the MS SQL backup mgmt tools are flakier than a french pastry. Instead of
using xp_sendmail, MS decided to use MAPI. What a FUBAR mess.
> It is really fun to work with database products.
Ain't it though?
/lee
Sergei Kuchin
all is relative.
Sergei
David Weis
Which was partly because of the competition with the other Oracle
applications. No need to feed the competitors.
david
--
David Weis | 10520 New York Ave, Des Moines, IA 50322
djw...@plconline.com | Voice 515-278-0133 Ext 231
| http://www.perfectionlearning.com/
leebert
> What's your take on administering DB2 vs. Oracle ?
My info on that is 3rd-hand... from what Meta Group told us (for their $100k worth of opinion), Oracle is 2x - 3x the admin. overhead of DB2 (& DB2 is no walk in
the park!). Other hearsay is that takes 2x the # of DBA's to run an Oracle shop. I guess people have money to burn. And with Oracle, you better have plenty 'o
money to burn anyway... <g>
>Is the training effort significant ?
Obviously there's DB2 training, very much worth it if you are using it. But the admin learning curve is a good 4 months for someone w/ MS SQL or Sybase
experience.
But if you have ever done Xbase programming, I think DB2 makes the most sense. You have control over table spaces, buffer pools and external storage (DB2 managed
RAM disks for Linux & NT w/ process address limits) that Sybase doesn't give you.
Not to dys Sybase. Just DB2 makes more sense from the ground up. I think the mainframe legacy has something to do w/ DB2 being a more structured & tunable
environment than Sybase. Mainframers demand that kind of tweak & tune capability.
>Are there 3rd pty tools such as DBArtisan/Embarcadero for DB2
Yeh I think DBArtisan has finally caught up w/ DB2 v. 6 as well as MS SQL 7.
DBArtisan is a bit dangerous if you do 'migrations' from server to server. It'll SNAFU badly on Schema-BCP migrations. It's better to stage the schema extract
w/out the FK / RI , bcp manually & then slap on the FK's last.
>How about backup and recovery and locking/contention.
>And does one scale better than the other ?
W/ Oracle, readers never block writers and writers never block readers. This is b/c of the row versioning engine ( visa vi Borland Interbase & Postgres ). So
concurrency issues are gone forever, great for OLTP. The upshot is that for smaller stuff, Oracle won't be as fast as MS SQL or Sybase, but for truely huge
stuff, Oracle will keep right on chugging w/out concurrency problems.
Last think I heard from one of MS's in-house consultant was that DB2 is still faster at queries than Oracle. Moreover, DB2 AS/400 has Encoded Vector Indexing -
this is an awesome tech: low cardinality columns are now optimizable w/ *very* compact EVI indexes. These aren't "compressed" indexes like Oracle or Informix or
Red Brick, this is a new technology. DB2 does in-RAM dynamic vector-hash bitmaps, so it doesn't need prep'd bitmaps that you have to maintain. It's all generally
applicable, not an arcane maintenance problem. Hopefully DB2 UDB will see EVI's on NT & Un*x sooner than later.
/lee
+-----[ http://leebert.home.mindspring.com ] --------+
It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows. -- Epictetus (c.55-c.135)
leebert
> Sybase is much better compared to Oracle and
> DB2. Especially the SQL based stored procedure is good
> and comes handy.
Oracle has PL-SQL. I thought it was pretty good , as good as Sybase's T-SQL from what my
Oracle friends have told me.
DB2 ver. 7 will have SQL-PL based on a proc language standard.
> temp database is very handy to resolve many big quiries.
Let's not forget MS SQL has tempdb, w/ #tables as well. And w/ DB2, you can give the users
their own schema that serves the same function.
> Updates are powerful with joins.
I thought DB2 has these.
> Replication concept is much better in Sybase than other databases.
Really? I'm curious how that is.. MS SQL does 3 kinds of replication. I'm not impressed by
DTS, but DirectConnect ain't a breeze either.
> No other database is that
> powerful as sybase.
later self-contradicted by:
> However Db2 ver 7 come with much powerful SQL support and refined database concepts.
Yes. DB2 v. 7 is going to kick some butt.
> it is always
> not Oracles defect, It is only your poor understanding of database
> technique. You shouldn't be surprised If they ask to change either the
> machine or the DBA. Oracle is the real pain.
This is what I've heard. Arrogant.
> All are equally competent in releasing the product with bugs.
Yup. But MS doesn't document patches made to MS SQL's kernel. BIZARRE!
> two simple insert / update would result in dead lock. Hope it is fixed
> in the latest release, I didn't get an opportunity to verify.
We fixed that by going w/ 3 or 4 named caches & segments for a table... that way the
spinlock is spread out. But still a pain, yes.
But we've also seen index page contention on DB2 UDB as well. Similiar approach w/ DB2:
Keep the commit size down & add more tablespaces. Again, row-versioning (Oracle,
Interbase, Postgres) will ultimately be the best sol'n for concurrency issues, I think
ultimately all DBMS vendors will go to row versioning.
/leebert
leebert
> No offence but: one man's meat is another man's poison.
> In other words,
> all is relative.
I work w/ DB2, MS SQL & Sybase.
They all have their place in our shop. I enjoy DB2 the most of all of them. But they all
get the job done w/ varying nuisance issues.
/l
leebert
> > I should have phrased that as "strategic platform."
> >
> > Peoplesoft dropped Oracle for DB2.
> >
> > It made big news in the past 2 months.
>
> Which was partly because of the competition with the other Oracle
> applications. No need to feed the competitors.
Heh heh. Biznizmen don't like to cut their own throats.
The reasons cited involved performance, but I wouldn't be surprised by ulterior motives... <g>
/l
Blair Kenneth Adamache
Davide Bianchi wrote:
> Pay attention also to the client licence fee. I remember that MS want a
> licence for each CLIENT accessing the database in an Intranet environment,
> this means that if you have 1000 users, you need 1000 licences (!!!!).
>
> > Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
>
> What ???? The last time I saw prices, Oracle was around 250$, how DB2 can be
> cheaper ?
> Davide
Blair Kenneth Adamache
DB2 has current TPC-H benchmarks, Oracle has not published a TPC-H yet.
Neither of us has published a TPC-R or TPC-W. DB2's ERP benchmarks (SAP
R/3, Baan, Peoplesoft) are in general faster and/or newer than Oracle's
ERP benchmarks. Please load your gun with bullets before you shoot from
the hip.
DODO wrote:
> leebert <*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> <392E6F5D...@mindspring.com>...
> >Meghana wrote:
> >
> >> I want to use Oracle as my database server. My lead
> >> wants to use SQL Server as the database server. The project
> >> is a Web Integration project with the database. We have to
> >> use the Database extensively. So I want to know the
> >> drawbacks of SQL Server over Oracle in features pertaining
> >> to performance/cost.
>
> >As for comparing DB2 relative to Oracle:
> >Oracle is reknown for higher admin effort than DB2.
> >Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
> >DB2 is currently faster than Oracle (last benches I've seen)
> >
>
> leebert,
>
> The last tpc tests show MS SQL with double performance and half price
> against the next in line, Oracle 8.i. No DB2 in sight.
>
> DOM
Blair Kenneth Adamache
and Windows) to thousands of dollars on an SMP. Comparisons are very difficult
unless you have specific configurations to compare (size of machine, number of
users, maintenance contract, internet access, heterogeneous database access,
replication, etc.).
Davide Bianchi wrote:
> Pay attention also to the client licence fee. I remember that MS want a
> licence for each CLIENT accessing the database in an Intranet environment,
> this means that if you have 1000 users, you need 1000 licences (!!!!).
>
> > Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
>
Blair Kenneth Adamache
leebert wrote:
> wildpony wrote:
>
> > leebert
> >
> > > > There are more vendors supporting Oracle & MS SQL Server. But PeopleSoft drop-kicked Oracle as strategic partner and is moving over to IBM DB2
> >
> > well if peoplesoft frop kicked oracle as a strategic partner maybe they should update their website
>
> I should have phrased that as "strategic platform."
>
> Peoplesoft dropped Oracle for DB2.
>
> It made big news in the past 2 months.
>
> /lee
Blair Kenneth Adamache
and 300 GB, DB2 is first in price/performance. At 100 GB, DB2 is second (and
first in the performance number).
DODO wrote:
> June 99 was the last time IBM elected to run that test.
> DOM
>
> Larry wrote in message <392E81C8...@us.ibm.com>...
> >That may simply mean that IBM elected not to run that benchmark, or that
> >IBM hasn't run that benchmark yet.
> >
> >DODO wrote:
> >
> >> leebert <*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> <392E6F5D...@mindspring.com>...
> >> >Meghana wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I want to use Oracle as my database server. My lead
> >> >> wants to use SQL Server as the database server. The project
> >> >> is a Web Integration project with the database. We have to
> >> >> use the Database extensively. So I want to know the
> >> >> drawbacks of SQL Server over Oracle in features pertaining
> >> >> to performance/cost.
> >>
> >> >As for comparing DB2 relative to Oracle:
> >> >Oracle is reknown for higher admin effort than DB2.
> >> >Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
leebert
> In MSSQL, I can create a database maintainance plan in about 5 minutes using a
> wizard that includes database consistency check and daily backup schedule of
> about 50 databases.
Yes, we use it.
Just wait 'til the SQL Agent screws you. Change the sa password, or do something to your exchange server. Not only will the MAPI break, the SQL Agent might get jammed. Worse, we changed the sa pwd, & it stopped doing backups. But it kept mailing us telling us "SUCCESS."
And it wouldn't work right, even when we rebuilt the maint. plans. Even when I manually wrote jobs, step by step. So back to the old pwd.
Worse, that MS SQL Agent only sends alerts to ONE e-mail address. That's it. Just one. And maint. plans only do BACKUPs or TRAN LOG dumps but not DIFFERENTIAL backups. What happened there? Did someone leave DIFF's out of the spec? Hello?
That SQL Agent breaks its MAPI interface twice a month. Sometimes the only sol'n is to cycle the server. MS could've used the xp_sendmail that's part of MS SQL 4.x up to 7. But no, sendmail's open standard, much less reliable. So SQL 7 used the Windoze Mail API. IMO, that SQL Agent is the
most amaturish P-O-S I've seen.
No, wait, the DB2 6.2 GUI control center also travels faster than the speed of suck too. But at least the DB2 GUI CC isn't responsible for fouling up your backups.
> It really saves a lot of administrative effort and time and
> I can concentrate on development as a Web Developer.
I think you just, unknowingly, hit the nail on the head. MS SQL is _more_ for developers & NT admins than it is for DBAs. MS has knowingly built MS SQL to fit the small to midsize shop where the developer and/or NT admin is also wearing a DBA hat. That's 90% of the apps. MS is going for the
markets that Intel can tackle successfully, w/ 32-bit & bridged PCI limitations.
MS focuses more on it's client tools & it shows. Its OLE-DB interfaces out to the rest of the world is pretty good. A lot of people like SQL Server's DTS ( I don't) & replication. But MS SQL 7 is still constrained by the limitations of Windows & MS's developer-centric approach.
Look where I sit: I'm running a state-wide data center for Texas state gov't. MS SQL is for our small apps. Sybase for our ERP PeopleSoft apps & medium-sized apps. Thank God I have DB2 to help me deal with this VLDB 12 gigabyte-per-week throughput on one database & a data warehousing & mart
project _starting_ at a terabyte. Neither SYbase nor MS SQL could keep up with the thruput.
I have a choice on the 1st project: 4 NT servers that'd cost $500k OR 1 RS/6000 Unix (AIX) box that'll cost $500k. The NT boxen (Compaqs) will have 1/3rd the power w/ the same amt of RAM. If we get more RAM for them, they might come out ahead slightly. But then there's the crappy volume mgmt
of Windows. It becomes impossible to tune disk subsystems when all you have for volume names is D-Z.
>
>
> In comp.databases.sybase leebert <*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > +-----[ http://leebert.home.mindspring.com ] --------+
> > It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows. -- Epictetus (c.55-c.135)
>
> --
> http://www.cooper.com.hk
--
+-----[ http://leebert.home.mindspring.com ] --------+
It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows. -- Epictetus (c.55-c.135)
Black holes are where God divides by zero
"God is a comedian playing to an audience that's too afraid to laugh." -- Voltaire
"If God dropped acid, would he see people?" Steven Wright
"God made everything out of nothing, but the nothingness shows through." Paul Valery
"If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated." Voltaire
"Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?" Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
"It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us." Peter De Vries
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself" Sir
Richard F. Burton
"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated
statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has
intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei
"The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd: why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants, and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? . . Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dung-hill croaking and squeaking "for
our sakes was the world created." Julian The Apostate
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
"When the iron bird flies and horses run on
wheels, the Tibetan people will be scattered
like ants across the world and the Dharma
will come to the land of the Red Man."
- Padmasambhava (8th century)
"Near the Day of Purification, there will be
cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
-- Hopi Prophecy (sung in the film soundtrack
of Koyaanisqatsi)
"A container of ashes might one day be thrown
from the sky, which could burn the land and
boil the oceans." -- Hopi Prophecy (sung in
the film soundtrack of Koyaanisqatsi)
+-----[ http://leebert.home.mindspring.com ] --------+
Adam Ruth
your organization. Internal clients still need to be paid for at regular
prices. This one shocked me too, I had to read the license several times to
make sure that's what it said.
--
Adam Ruth
InterCation, Inc.
www.intercation.com
"Chad" <cmcl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8gmamf$6l8$1...@gaddy.interpath.net...
> I have to disagree with the licensing comment. If you are running
> a web server you can buy an Internet Connector license for SQL Server
> and this allows for unlimited connections to the database server.
>
> On another note, I feel like SQL, Oracle, and DB2 all have their place.
The
> time
> it takes to develop good application and db design is more important than
> which
> DBMS you use. SQL is definitely the best platform in the Intel arena...
> you'd be
> crazy not to seriously consider SQL Server for any application (even if
you
> want
> your web server to run on a Unix box). SQL 7.0 is a real database.. 6.5
> really
> wasn't that great, but SQL 7.0 (and especially the upcoming SQL 2000) will
> do
> anything you need it to do. You get replication, OLAP services and a
number
> of
> other freebies that cost big bucks if you buy Oracle (not sure about
DB2 --
> I don't
> know what they include). It is no brainer..
>
> "Davide Bianchi" <davide_...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:8glsk6$1imtl$1...@fu-berlin.de...
Norris
Rob Schreurs
rqually powerfull. You just have to know what button (or command) to push in
one and which button to push in the other to get the job done.
Oracle is a bit more configurable but sybase does a nicer job wwhen you try
to administer it.
As leebert mentioned below: They both get the job done
Rob
leebert <*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:393018DD...@mindspring.com...
> Sergei Kuchin wrote:
>
> > No offence but: one man's meat is another man's poison.
> > In other words,
> > all is relative.
>
> I work w/ DB2, MS SQL & Sybase.
>
> They all have their place in our shop. I enjoy DB2 the most of all of
them. But they all
> get the job done w/ varying nuisance issues.
>
> /l
>
leebert
Norris wrote:
> In MSSQL, I can create a database maintainance plan in about 5 minutes using
> a wizard that includes database consistency check and daily backup schedule of
> about 50 databases.
Not that that's bad. Yes, we use it too, with varying degrees of regret. Enuf grief w/ SQL Agent (the NT service that runs your maintenance plans) to warrant writing our own tools, just like we do for Sybase & DB2.
Just wait 'til the SQL Agent screws you. Change the sa password, or do
something to your exchange server. Not only will the MAPI break, the SQL Agent
might get jammed. Worse, we changed the sa pwd, & it stopped doing backups.
But it kept mailing us telling us "SUCCESS."
And it wouldn't work right, even when we rebuilt the maint. plans. Even when I
manually wrote jobs, step by step. So back to the old pwd.
Worse, that MS SQL Agent only sends alerts to ONE e-mail address. That's it.
Just one. And maint. plans only do BACKUPs or TRAN LOG dumps but not
DIFFERENTIAL backups. What happened there? Did someone leave DIFF's out of the
spec? Hello?
That SQL Agent breaks its MAPI interface twice a month. Sometimes the only
sol'n is to cycle the server. MS could've used the xp_sendmail that's part of
MS SQL 4.x up to 7. But no, sendmail's open standard, much less reliable. So
SQL 7 used the Windoze Mail API. IMO, that SQL Agent is the
most amaturish P-O-S I've seen.
No, wait, the DB2 6.2 GUI control center also travels faster than the speed of
suck too. But at least the DB2 GUI CC isn't responsible for fouling up your
backups.
> It really saves a lot of administrative effort and time and
> I can concentrate on development as a Web Developer.
I think you just, unknowingly, hit the nail on the head. MS SQL is _more_ for
developers & NT admins than it is for DBAs. MS has knowingly built MS SQL to
fit the small to midsize shop where the developer and/or NT admin is also
wearing a DBA hat. That's 90% of the apps. MS is going for the
markets that Intel can tackle successfully, w/ 32-bit & bridged PCI
limitations.
MS focuses more on it's client tools & it shows. Its OLE-DB interfaces out to
the rest of the world is pretty good. A lot of people like SQL Server's DTS (
I don't) & replication. But MS SQL 7 is still constrained by the limitations
of Windows & MS's developer-centric approach. So MS SQL's security model
favors NT Admins & developers, not security-conscious DBA's, and MS SQL's
tracer / profiler require NT-based authentication. This is *bad* if your LAN
admins aren't also your DBAs and your LAN uses one big domain.
OTOH, look where I sit: I'm running a state-wide data center for Texas state gov't.
MS SQL is for our small apps. Sybase for our ERP PeopleSoft apps &
medium-sized apps. Thank goodness I have DB2 to help me deal with this VLDB 12
gigabyte-per-week throughput on one database & a data warehousing & mart
project _starting_ at a terabyte. Neither SYbase nor MS SQL could keep up with
the thruput b/c of the logs: we'd either be dumping the logs all the time or truncating
them. W/ DB2 you don't need to "dump" the logs. Ever.
But then there's the crappy volume mgmt of Windows. It becomes impossible to tune disk subsystems when all you have for volume names is D-Z & when RAID 5 isn't what you want for *ALL* your database devices. OTOH, AIX (IBM's Unix) has logical volume mgm't. Amazing stuff, tune down the center
of each disk, etc. Makes the task of tuning the IO subsystem *possible.*
I had considered the choices on the 1st project for DB2's platform. Either 4 NT servers that'd cost $450K OR ONE (1) RS/6000 Unix (AIX) box that'll cost $450K. The NT boxen (Compaqs) would have had 1/3rd the power w/ the same amt of RAM b/c Intel is 32bit & the PCI is *bridged* which is
*slow*. If we get more RAM for them, they might come out even or possibly ahead. DB2 can use *ALL* the RAM on NT 4, unlike Sybase or MS SQL, using *all* 8 or 16 Gig RAM as data storage on NT4, again unlike Sybase or MS SQL. To my knowledge, only DB2 can do this on Linux or Windows b/c of its
segmented architecture & extended storage pools. All this requires extra mgm't but at least you can accomplish your objective, which is to tune the database. If you are stuck w/ MS SQL as your only option, you will hit barriers from the ground up.
So, yes. MS SQL is easy. Until you have to manage it for high volumes, at which point it's no easier, if not harder, than any other vendor's database (which is appropo, btw, since a great deal of it is still Sybase, under the hood).
/leebert
Michael D. Long
The original comment regarding per seat licensing for *Intranet*
connections is valid. The *Internet* Connector is valid only for
e-commerce type sites and does not cover internal sites.
Were this not true, then everyone would simply cut their costs
by moving to a 3-tier architecture and SQL Servers revenue would
drop dramatically.
--
Michael D. Long
http://extremedna.homestead.com
Michael D. Long
The last time I read the license in-depth, per server vs. per
seat must be determined for the entire enterprise. The license
did not allow you to set up connections to one server as "per
server" and another "per seat".
Even under per server you would still need a 1000 seat server
license to handle 1000 concurrent user connections.
--
Michael D. Long
http://extremedna.homestead.com
"Neil Pike" <10057...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000d8...@compuserve.com...
> Davide,
>
> > Pay attention also to the client licence fee. I remember that MS want a
> > licence for each CLIENT accessing the database in an Intranet
environment,
> > this means that if you have 1000 users, you need 1000 licences (!!!!).
>
> Not true. You could have the server set-up in per-server mode. In
per-seat mode you would need 1000.
>
> >
> >
> > > Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
> >
> > What ???? The last time I saw prices, Oracle was around 250$, how DB2
can be
> > cheaper ?
> > Davide
> >
>
> Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
> (Please reply only to newsgroups)
> SQL FAQ (428 entries) see
> forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
(sqlfaq.zip - L7 - SQL Public)
> or www.ntfaq.com/sql.html
> or www.sql-server.co.uk
> or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
>
>
Adam Ruth
and you can have all internal and external clients attach to a database.
That makes DB2 quite a bit less expensive than SQL Server when used with
large numbers of clients, especially when some are internal and some
external.
--
Adam Ruth
InterCation, Inc.
www.intercation.com
"Michael D. Long" <lead...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:75hY4.1541$O.1...@news1.atl...
>
> The original comment regarding per seat licensing for *Intranet*
> connections is valid. The *Internet* Connector is valid only for
> e-commerce type sites and does not cover internal sites.
>
> Were this not true, then everyone would simply cut their costs
> by moving to a 3-tier architecture and SQL Servers revenue would
> drop dramatically.
>
> --
> Michael D. Long
> http://extremedna.homestead.com
>
>
Adam Ruth
for an Internet Connection License, and around $500 for the server license.
With the Internet Connection License, you can have an unlimited number of
internal and external client connections. With SQL Server, Oracle, and
Sybase (I don't know about Informix), you'll still be paying for additional
users as you add them.
--
Adam Ruth
InterCation, Inc.
www.intercation.com
"Michael D. Long" <lead...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:85hY4.1542$O.1...@news1.atl...
>
> The last time I read the license in-depth, per server vs. per
> seat must be determined for the entire enterprise. The license
> did not allow you to set up connections to one server as "per
> server" and another "per seat".
>
> Even under per server you would still need a 1000 seat server
> license to handle 1000 concurrent user connections.
>
> --
> Michael D. Long
> http://extremedna.homestead.com
>
>
> "Neil Pike" <10057...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:VA.00000d8...@compuserve.com...
> > Davide,
> >
> > > Pay attention also to the client licence fee. I remember that MS want
a
> > > licence for each CLIENT accessing the database in an Intranet
> environment,
> > > this means that if you have 1000 users, you need 1000 licences (!!!!).
> >
Sinisa Catic
concentrate on developement rather than constantly tweaking database.
Auto-tuning is now part of server engine (those years of research now are
included in the finished product). Biggest difference here is between Oracle
and SQL Server. MS SQL Server 6.0/6.5 has 51 parameters to tune, SQL Server
7.0-43 params and SQL Server 2000 even less (I did not have time to count
them). Compare this with Oracle having at least 200 parameters.
Sinisa Catic
Norris <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
news:8gps53$qnv$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> In MSSQL, I can create a database maintainance plan in about 5 minutes
using a wizard that includes database consistency check and daily backup
schedule of about 50 databases. It really saves a lot of administrative
effort and time and I can concentrate on development as a Web Developer.
>
> > +-----[ http://leebert.home.mindspring.com ] --------+
> > It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already
knows. -- Epictetus (c.55-c.135)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.cooper.com.hk
Andrew McLauchlan
DB2 . Oracle is tedious and untidy. DB2 is neat and easily tuned.
And this is is on 50Gb to 200Gb DBs (I've used Oracle longer)
..Andrew
Norris
In comp.databases.sybase Sinisa Catic <sin...@9bit.qc.ca> wrote:
> In my opinion this is the best point regarding MS SQL Server. You
> concentrate on developement rather than constantly tweaking database.
> Auto-tuning is now part of server engine (those years of research now are
> included in the finished product). Biggest difference here is between Oracle
> and SQL Server. MS SQL Server 6.0/6.5 has 51 parameters to tune, SQL Server
> 7.0-43 params and SQL Server 2000 even less (I did not have time to count
> them). Compare this with Oracle having at least 200 parameters.
> Sinisa Catic
> Norris <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:8gps53$qnv$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> In MSSQL, I can create a database maintainance plan in about 5 minutes
> using a wizard that includes database consistency check and daily backup
> schedule of about 50 databases. It really saves a lot of administrative
> effort and time and I can concentrate on development as a Web Developer.
>>
>> --
>> http://www.cooper.com.hk
Trevor Best
on your server running those scripts that sombody got carried away
creatring, now imagine the hourglass on the font-end.
Norris <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
news:8gvh2a$qme$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
Neil Pike
> Just wait 'til the SQL Agent screws you. Change the sa password, or do
> something to your exchange server. Not only will the MAPI break, the SQL Agent
> might get jammed. Worse, we changed the sa pwd, & it stopped doing backups.
> But it kept mailing us telling us "SUCCESS."
So don't use SQL Agent - I don't! Just because a supplied tool may not be 100% doesn't affect the kernel.
> Worse, that MS SQL Agent only sends alerts to ONE e-mail address. That's it.
> Just one.
So send it to a distribution list
> And maint. plans only do BACKUPs or TRAN LOG dumps but not
> DIFFERENTIAL backups. What happened there? Did someone leave DIFF's out of the
> spec? Hello?
Maint plans are there for simple setups. If you have a DB that is the size that needs diff backups
then you shouldn't be using the wizards.
> That SQL Agent breaks its MAPI interface twice a month. Sometimes the only
> sol'n is to cycle the server. MS could've used the xp_sendmail that's part of
> MS SQL 4.x up to 7. But no, sendmail's open standard, much less reliable. So
> SQL 7 used the Windoze Mail API. IMO, that SQL Agent is the
> most amaturish P-O-S I've seen.
All versions of SQL Server use the same MAPI api.
David Weis
On Sun, 28 May 2000, Adam Ruth wrote:
> That's one nice thing about DB2. The workgroup edition tops out at $2,800
> for an Internet Connection License, and around $500 for the server license.
> With the Internet Connection License, you can have an unlimited number of
> internal and external client connections. With SQL Server, Oracle, and
> Sybase (I don't know about Informix), you'll still be paying for additional
> users as you add them.
With Oracle's new licensing-formula-of-the-week, you pay for power units
based on the processing power of the machine and can load as many users on
to it as you want.
david
> > > Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
> > > (Please reply only to newsgroups)
> > > SQL FAQ (428 entries) see
> > > forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
> > (sqlfaq.zip - L7 - SQL Public)
> > > or www.ntfaq.com/sql.html
> > > or www.sql-server.co.uk
> > > or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--
David Weis | 10520 New York Ave, Des Moines, IA 50322
djw...@plconline.com | Voice 515-278-0133 Ext 231
| http://www.perfectionlearning.com/
When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the Fifth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the First Amendment and I can't say anything.
wildpony
wildpony
leebert wrote:
> ji...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Sybase is much better compared to Oracle and
> > DB2. Especially the SQL based stored procedure is good
> > and comes handy.
>
I disagree about Sybase SQL sp being better than ORACLE, ORACLE PS/SQL
SP/cursors and triggers are awesome if you know how to program..!!!!
AS for DB2 SP/triggers/cursors oops sorry that really dont have anything good...
WHY dont you try Informix...now there is an engine that is more powerful than all
except for maybe ORACLE
Matt
<*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>But if you have ever done Xbase programming, I think DB2 makes the most sense.
Why do you say this? What makes DB2 more 'Xbase addaptable? I assume
when you say 'Xbase' you are indicating dBase, Clipper, FoxPro, etc.
Adam Ruth
though.
--
Adam Ruth
InterCation, Inc.
www.intercation.com
"David Weis" <djw...@plconline.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100053...@catbert.desm.plconline.com...
Miguel Cruz
> Interesting, but I bet it's still very expensive. It looks like a good
> move though.
Not cheap, 'tis true. I seem to recall $15 per MHz per CPU for 8i standard
edition. Then everything else, from support to the actual CDs, is a separate
charge.
miguel
leebert
wildpony wrote:
>
> Siebel only made that choice because Larry bashed on them , on how Oracle
>Products are better and more effiecient then Siebels CRM/ERP
Larry must've thought that other biznizmen like to cut their own throats.
/l
leebert
>
> So don't use SQL Agent - I don't!
Right. We've written our own procedures, just like w/ Sybase & DB2.
> > Worse, that MS SQL Agent only sends alerts to ONE e-mail address. That's it.
> > Just one.
>
> So send it to a distribution list
There was some sort of extenuating reason why we couldn't use one... forget
what that was now, I think it was a political hinderance. And we wanted a way
to directly e-mail our pagers in case of a big MAPI mess starting w/ the
e-mail server, which is common. Exchange Server is a weak link in our shop.
> All versions of SQL Server use the same MAPI api.
I had thought earlier more Sybase-ish versions used xp_sendmail. Or at least
they should have. xp_sendmail works very reliably. Dunno what MS's fascination
is w/ MAPI <g>.
/l
leebert
>
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 13:34:11 -0500, leebert wrote
>
> >But if you have ever done Xbase programming, I think DB2 makes the most sense.
>
> Why do you say this? What makes DB2 more 'Xbase addaptable? I assume
> when you say 'Xbase' you are indicating dBase, Clipper, FoxPro, etc.
If you have viewed the world from ISAM table administration, you will find the
structure of DB2 appealing. I suppose I should include Paradox programmers in
there too. And mainframe VSAM people.
/l
Niall Litchfield
For an NT server running twin 600Mhz processors. Hardly state of the art
600 * 2 * 15 = $18,000 for standard edition
for enterprise edition
600 * 2 * 100 = $120,000.
less a volume discount of 30k =$90,000
don't want to be buying those quad 800's just yet.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"Miguel Cruz" <m...@admin.u.nu> wrote in message
news:xe3Z4.14843$Ym2.3...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
ajm...@my-deja.com
*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com wrote:
> DODO wrote:
>
> > The last tpc tests show MS SQL with double performance and half
price against the next
> > in line, Oracle 8.i. No DB2 in sight.
>
It is worth mentioning here that prior to Byte ceasing to print as a
paper magazine, they tried to do a comparative benchmark across the
leading RDBMS vendors. Surprise surprise. All vendors but one said 'no.
You will not do that. Our license terms forbid it'. So they had to pull
out and have never published their results. And the vendor who was
willing to let them publish? IBM. I think maybe that tells you something
PS: I am very very impressed with DB2 and I would seriously consider it
for large-scale enterprise-wide applications. Oracle can be a difficult
and arrogant company to deal with - Ellison sets the style - and I
prefer the professionalism of IBM. I have also heard rumours that
Oracle are withdrawing their product from the NT platform. If so, this
is very stupid. It is not that you want to deploy on NT, heaven forbid,
but for a developer with a laptop, having all the servers on the
machine is hugely useful - you can develop & troubleshoot anywhere you
go. And DB2 for NT works very nicely indeed, though it is somewhat
memory-hungry (but less so than Oracle).
The only RDBMS I would *not* recommend out of Informix,Sybase,
Oracle,SQL Server and DB2 is Sybase. A weak, poorly-coded product with
far too many defects and all sorts of nasty limitations like a crappy
optimiser which chokes on (>4 table) joins. Just plain nasty. All the
other products are vastly superior. I wish, however, other vendors had
Oracle's functionality where readers don't block writers. This is just
so clearly superior, imho, to any kind of bogus locking scenarios,
especially where transaction durations are greater than a second or two.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rob Verschoor
> The only RDBMS I would *not* recommend out of Informix,Sybase,
> Oracle,SQL Server and DB2 is Sybase. A weak, poorly-coded product
with
> far too many defects and all sorts of nasty limitations like a
crappy
> optimiser which chokes on (>4 table) joins. Just plain nasty. All
the
> other products are vastly superior.
Well, it looks like you haven't been working with the last few
releases of Sybase ASE since 1998...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Verschoor
Certified Sybase Professional DBA/SQL Developer for ASE 11.5
Certified DBA/Performance & Tuning Specialist for Sybase System 11
email mailto:r...@sypron.nl.*No*Spam*Please*
WWW http://www.euronet.nl/~syp_rob
snail Sypron B.V., P.O.Box 10695, 2501HR Den Haag, The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blair Kenneth Adamache
and predictable, as well as the reason you cite ("don't feed your competition").
I've talked to SAP consultants (friends, not people I meet through my job) who say their DB2/SAP customers are in general happier than their Oracle/SAP
customers.
wildpony wrote:
> Siebel only made that choice because Larry bashed on them , on how Oracle Products are better and more effiecient then Siebels CRM/ERP
>
Philip Brown
>... I have also heard rumours that
>Oracle are withdrawing their product from the NT platform.
Yay!
> If so, this
>is very stupid. It is not that you want to deploy on NT, heaven forbid,
>but for a developer with a laptop, having all the servers on the
>machine is hugely useful
It *IS* POSSIBLE to run something other than M$ on a laptop.
And some of those alternatives can run oracle, and sybase, even.
>The only RDBMS I would *not* recommend out of Informix,Sybase,
>Oracle,SQL Server and DB2 is Sybase.
You would recommend microsoft's "SQL Server" over Sybase, when many say
it is only a poor derivative of its parent Sybase release?
Interesting.
--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
The word of the day is mispergitude
Neil Pike
calls).
"sendmail" is a Unix term for a command-line SMTP mail sender. The two have nothing to do with each other.
> > All versions of SQL Server use the same MAPI api.
>
> I had thought earlier more Sybase-ish versions used xp_sendmail. Or at least
> they should have. xp_sendmail works very reliably. Dunno what MS's fascination
> is w/ MAPI <g>.
>
> /l
>
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
wildpony
OH PLEASE get real , SAP/Siebel/Peoplesoft could give 2 hoots as to the price for the RDBMS as long as they are generating revenue off their products
as for PeopleSoft I worked with it and it is a real pain and they have certified their products to run on certain versions of a particular RDBMS/OS system and
when you inplement it , low and behold it does not work correctly and I had to work with PeopleSoft for them to get a fix out...HUMMMMMMMM no wonder ORACLe
decided to create their own CRM/ERP product
as for siebel they hired one of my old junior level DBA's to do their support hummm figure that one out he only knew smalls junior size bits or ORACLE on nt and
nothing else and he was their support person
as for SAP well they overload the database with too many unless tables
NOW the bottom line is why would or could they be strategic partners with a company who is also one of their top competitors in the same market
leebert
> no wonder ORACLe > decided to create their own CRM/ERP product
Yeh, Oracle Financials are reknown for being bug-free...... <g>
> Blair Kenneth Adamache wrote:
We can forgive BKA for being biased, just as we can forgive you... <g>
/lee
leebert
>
> You're talking at cross purposes. xp_sendmail is a SQL Server extended
> stored-procedure. This xp ONLY does MAPI calls (no SMTP calls).
> "sendmail" is a Unix term for a command-line SMTP mail sender. The two
> have nothing to do with each other.
Well Sybase xp_sendmail certainly isn't MAPI on Unix. And we don't even need
MAPI client installed for Sybase NT to xp_sendmail. AFAIK, they use SMTP
sendmail.
So if you use both Sybase & MS SQL on 2 different platforms (NT, Unix)
xp_sendmail & sendmail seem very related.
And your comments leaves me at a quandry why we find xp_sendmail in MS SQL
more reliable.
/l
Neil Pike
> MAPI client installed for Sybase NT to xp_sendmail. AFAIK, they use SMTP
> sendmail.
I don't know anything about Sybase, but I would expect it to use SMTP rather
than MAPI. My comments are all
on MS SQL Server
leebert
> it is only a poor derivative of its parent Sybase release?
> Interesting.
They've both come a long way, actually.
Sybase 11.9.2 is fairly satisfactory, altho large compound queries may still
be a weakness. MS SQL 7 has a rewritten kernel, so much so that MS broke
support for outer joins on views (!!) & dropped 'abort tran on log full' (a
very nice development feature in Sybase & MS SQL 6.5).
Even so, both share similar Sybase-ish strengths & vulnerabilities. MS SQL 7
has the same Sybase T-SQL parser bug that it had in 6.5 that Sybase had in
10.04 that's still in 11.9.2.
leebert
>
> I don't know anything about Sybase, but I would expect it to use SMTP rather
> than MAPI. My comments are all on MS SQL Server
Now you know how my head spins as I bounce from Sybase to MS SQL to DB2. God
help us if we get Oracle in the shop. After that comes Informix, Postgres SQL
& MySQL. I'll be so eclectic my brains will fall out, then I'll start writing
magazine articles.
/l
ajm...@my-deja.com
"Rob Verschoor" <r...@sypron.nl> wrote:
>
> > The only RDBMS I would *not* recommend out of Informix,Sybase,
> with
> > far too many defects and all sorts of nasty limitations like a
> crappy
> > optimiser which chokes on (>4 table) joins. Just plain nasty. All
> the
> > other products are vastly superior.
>
> Well, it looks like you haven't been working with the last few
> releases of Sybase ASE since 1998...
>
organisation and restore it on your machine. Note that (at least, when
I tried this for 11.9) Sybase matches up database user ids against
login ids without regard for the fact that the engine logins have no
relationship with the user ids that come from the other site. So logins
get mapped to random users on the restored database. This doesn't seem
like the mark of a well-designed product. I don't know, also, I must
admit, whether the brain-damaged optimiser is fixed in 11.9 or 12. Its
worst trait, apart from weak join processing, was that if you performed
the query at isolation level 0, the optimiser would make completely
different choices (usually grossly inappropriate) on how to handle the
query than what it did at isolation level 1. Oh, and also if you did a
large read-only query at isolation level 0 (using 11.1) and someone
concurrently attempted to access the same table at a different
isolation level, this could cause the isolation level 0 query to fail
midway through. And so on. Then there's the awful design of the system
catalogues. Getting metadata out of them is horrible - the stored
procedures are far too slow but querying the catalogues directly
requires some really convoluted SQL. And look at the non-relational
design of the system tables (storing each index column in its own
column on one base table, for instance, instead of doing it properly in
two tables). Note that Oracle and DB2 have nice clean system
catalogues, properly relationally designed - DB2 in particular has
really beautifully elegant system catalogues. Just do the obvious joins
and you have what you need. This tells you a lot about the strength of
the foundations.
SQL Server has inherited a lot of Sybase's inelegance, I admit, but in
fairness to Microsoft they've cleaned a lot of the cruft out and the
management tools are best of breed. Given SQL Server's workgroup focus,
it is a fine database for small to medium sites. Sybase likes to
suggest that it can go play with the big boys. But its fundamental
underlying architecture is so crufty that I find this claim somewhat
hard to swallow. Mind you, Oracle isn't entirely wart-free in some
areas either, but most of its basic architecture is pretty clean.
I don't know. Am I being unfair here. Let's take another example (I did
this on 11.5, admittedly - maybe 12 has this feature.
Consider the problem of reporting the differences in rowsets between
two tables i.e the intersection of the tables.
In Oracle, you can do this very nicely with the MINUS operator
In SQL Server 7 you can do this with ANSI-92 cross joins and a filter
to select the rows that contain nulls (these are therefore the rows
that don't match).
In Sybase I don't know how to do this without a temporary table because
the old-fashioned outer join syntax doesn't mix well with an additional
filtering clause (that's why the ANSI-92 join syntax was invented).
Finally, documentation. Oracle is pretty completely documented via
HTML.Sure the inbuilt search facility tends to lock up, but its just
HTML so you can work round this. SQL Server 7 has the excellent books
online. Sybase 11 came with the dreadful Sybooks which I never did
learn how to use properly, or you could (gasp) get some PDFs which take
forever to search and are incomplete, anyway. For instance, where do
you find out the exact differences between the roles sso_role and
sa_role?.
Ah yes, roles. Oracle has proper roles with fine-grained granularity
like 'create users'. Sybase/SQL Server have laughably primitive
security systems. I can live with SQL Server's limits given the modest
size of a likely SQL Server installation - not so sure about Sybase.
Now maybe Sybase 12 fixes all this stuff. In which case, well, let's go
to sybase.com and check out what's new in 12. Well... all I get is a
whole bunch of puffery about scaleability and stuff. I haven't got time
to reevaluate a product with a history of mediocrity every time a new
release comes out. If Sybase think the latest releases have finally
caught up to everyone else, maybe they should publish a digest of the
changes somewhere it can be easily read, so cynics like me can be
converted.
One last point.
Oracle give away their ODBC driver so you can easily deploy
applications that connect to Oracle
Microsoft give away their ODBC driver (so you can....)
IBM give away their ODBC driver (....)
even CA give away their Ingres ODBC driver (....)
but not Sybase. No, you get to pay through the nose for n copies of
their rebadged Intersolv driver.
Chad
going to
start pricing their products correctly like Microsoft does? I don't see the
point. Please
explain why they do this!!
Also when you get SQL Server you get EVERYTHING. Why does Oracle charge
extra
for their options?
"Niall Litchfield" <n-litc...@audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:8h2su9$5bi$1...@soap.pipex.net...
wildpony
Server, Informix and Sybase, they all tend to have bugs in their products
at one time or another, just like they all have certain good products and
good points just as well as bad products and bad points.
But you can not say Oracle is bad just because SAP/PeopleSOft/Seibel all
decided to drop Oracle as an actual strategic partner, Hell if Sql Server
were on anything else besides NT then non of the above would even try to
be strategic partners with them, cuz good old Bill would go out of his way
to make a product just to compete with them...and thats business whether
its good or bad that is just plain and simple business !!!!!!!
Norris
Chad
environment where
we run SQL on NT server and Oracle on Sun Solaris. Every pricing matrix we
have put
together really shows the flaws in Oracle's pricing. I wonder why they had
to drop their
prices about 40% after SQL 7 was released?
"Norris" <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
news:8h5qim$13kh$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
Alexander Penev
Chad wrote:
> I don't use Oracle, but I do use SQL Server. I happen to be in an
> environment where
> we run SQL on NT server and Oracle on Sun Solaris. Every pricing matrix we
> have put
> together really shows the flaws in Oracle's pricing. I wonder why they had
> to drop their
> prices about 40% after SQL 7 was released?
>
They didn't drop anything
siuhu...@my-deja.com
with all the auto correcting features in 7 you dont need a dba, which is
what microsoft wants and is a selling point for the product to the
bean-counters. however, after thinking about it, my job is safe because
microsoft - as with any other company - is so good at delivering large
monolithic programs without bugs :)
personally, i think the more levers you have the better. if you dont
want to deal with them just leave the defaults ( except for memory and
connections - note: for non ms dbms's )
dave
In article <MZjY4.1223$MS2....@wagner.videotron.net>,
"Sinisa Catic" <sin...@9bit.qc.ca> wrote:
> In my opinion this is the best point regarding MS SQL Server. You
> concentrate on developement rather than constantly tweaking database.
> Auto-tuning is now part of server engine (those years of research now
are
> included in the finished product). Biggest difference here is between
Oracle
> and SQL Server. MS SQL Server 6.0/6.5 has 51 parameters to tune, SQL
Server
> 7.0-43 params and SQL Server 2000 even less (I did not have time to
count
> them). Compare this with Oracle having at least 200 parameters.
>
> Sinisa Catic
>
> Norris <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:8gps53$qnv$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
Kizzy
10.03/11.0.3 ASE at least). I find this extremely useful.
<siuhu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8h6794$7p5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Kizzy
leebert
> of the price, another gives you 99% of the solution for 100% of the
> price.
Let me see... that wasn't an Oracle 'someone' who said that, was it?
To say that MS SQL or DB2 or Sybase are 80% sol'ns would misrepresent their
capabilities, speed, and effectiveness.
Nor are they 20% the price of Oracle, but rather 33% <g>
/l
leebert
Larry's yacht needs to stay out of dry dock.
/l
leebert
Norris wrote:
>
> If you don't like the pricing policy, you can stop using Oracle.
Sounds like another reason to upgrade to DB2... <g>
/l
DNP
As someone said once, one database gives you 80% of the solution for 20%
of the price, another gives you 99% of the solution for 100% of the
price.
I'm not mentioning any names of course so we can all draw our own
conclusions ;-)
The real question - why would anyone want to settle for just 80% of a
solution?.
David P. OCP (DBA) MCP (TCP/IP)
Glasgow, Scotland.
======================================================================
wildpony
hummmmmmmmmmm let me checdk out the newspaper for today
leebert wrote:
> wildpony wrote:
> >
> > But you can not say Oracle is bad
> > just because SAP/PeopleSOft/Seibel all
> > decided to drop Oracle as an actual strategic partner,
>
> Perhaps it'd be more appropo to say that Larry E. has a knack for pissing off
> *EVERYONE* in the ERP industry.
>
> And similarly, I guess we shouldn't say that Larry E. is *BAD* just because he
> has a knack for pissing off the ERP industry.
>
> Nor should we say his yacht is really nice b/c Larry E. has a knack for....
>
> > business whether
> > its good or bad that is just plain and simple business !!!!!!!
>
> Like love & war....
>
> /l
Adam Ruth
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/pricing.htm
Here's the relevant info on the Internet Connector lincense we've been
talking about:
Internet Connector
The Internet Connector is a license that allows an unlimited number of
devices used by Internet users access to SQL Server via your site. An
"Internet user" is any person currently connected to the Internet, other
than a person employed by you (as an employee, independent contractor, or in
any other capacity), or otherwise providing goods or services to you or on
your behalf. You must purchase an Internet Connector License for each
processor on each server that is running SQL Server or SQL Server Enterprise
Edition.
Note: Intranet and extranet applications require CALs.
--
Adam Ruth
InterCation, Inc.
www.intercation.com
"Kizzy" <kiz...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:sjdcjs...@corp.supernews.com...
> BTW, how do you buy (& how much is) a single, homely SQL Server 7.0 "CAL"?
> "Norris" <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:8h5qim$13kh$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> > If you don't like the pricing policy, you can stop using Oracle.
> >
> > In comp.databases.sybase Chad <cmcl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Why does Oracle charge by the CPU/Mhz on the Intel platform? When
are
> they
> > > going to
> > > start pricing their products correctly like Microsoft does? I don't
see
> the
> > > point. Please
> > > explain why they do this!!
> >
> > > Also when you get SQL Server you get EVERYTHING. Why does Oracle
charge
> > > extra
> > > for their options?
> >
Gene Wirchenko
>What price Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation and Durability?
>
>As someone said once, one database gives you 80% of the solution for 20%
>of the price, another gives you 99% of the solution for 100% of the
>price.
>
>I'm not mentioning any names of course so we can all draw our own
>conclusions ;-)
>
>The real question - why would anyone want to settle for just 80% of a
>solution?.
The wording for some might be that x can do 99 for 100 and y can
do 80 for only 20. How valuable is that 19? If it's nice but not
necessary, I can see someone going the 80 for 20 route. This isn't
just a point about DBMSs.
Consider cars. I don't need a sportscar.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
dej...@my-deja.com
> far too many defects and all sorts of nasty "
I doubt this is an objective comment. The one business Sybase managed
to hang on to for years (and some even now), is Wall Street. And if
you've ever dealt with WallStreet customers, they're unforgiving.
Uptime, reliability and crash-proofness are reasons they stuck to
Sybase despite Oracle assaults.
Lets not forget that marketing and not development has been the
bellwether of software viability (vis-a-vis Macs vs. PCs, Unix vs.
Windolts etc)
In article <8h31l3$4tm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
ajm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <392F3B08...@mindspring.com>,
> *GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > DODO wrote:
> >
> > > The last tpc tests show MS SQL with double performance and half
> price against the next
> > > in line, Oracle 8.i. No DB2 in sight.
> >
>
> It is worth mentioning here that prior to Byte ceasing to print as a
> paper magazine, they tried to do a comparative benchmark across the
> leading RDBMS vendors. Surprise surprise. All vendors but one
said 'no.
> You will not do that. Our license terms forbid it'. So they had to
pull
> out and have never published their results. And the vendor who was
> willing to let them publish? IBM. I think maybe that tells you
something
>
> PS: I am very very impressed with DB2 and I would seriously consider
it
> for large-scale enterprise-wide applications. Oracle can be a
difficult
> and arrogant company to deal with - Ellison sets the style - and I
> prefer the professionalism of IBM. I have also heard rumours that
> Oracle are withdrawing their product from the NT platform. If so, this
> is very stupid. It is not that you want to deploy on NT, heaven
forbid,
> but for a developer with a laptop, having all the servers on the
> machine is hugely useful - you can develop & troubleshoot anywhere you
> go. And DB2 for NT works very nicely indeed, though it is somewhat
> memory-hungry (but less so than Oracle).
>
> The only RDBMS I would *not* recommend out of Informix,Sybase,
> Oracle,SQL Server and DB2 is Sybase. A weak, poorly-coded product with
> far too many defects and all sorts of nasty limitations like a crappy
> optimiser which chokes on (>4 table) joins. Just plain nasty. All the
> other products are vastly superior. I wish, however, other vendors had
> Oracle's functionality where readers don't block writers. This is just
> so clearly superior, imho, to any kind of bogus locking scenarios,
> especially where transaction durations are greater than a second or
two.
Blair Kenneth Adamache
Sybase client-server model with DB2 on OS/390. J.P. Morgan and IBM issued
this press release in February:
J.P. Morgan to Base Future IT Architecture on IBM e-business Software
Joins IBM's Growing Roster of e-business Software Customers
on Wall Street
http://www.ibmlink.ibm.com/uspress&parms=P_2000030104
New York, February 29, 2000... J.P. Morgan has selected IBM's software
solutions to help build and run its next generation technology
infrastructure and business-critical applications.
J.P. Morgan will replace its existing legacy applications to run DB2
Universal Database and VisualAge for Java on an existing mix of IBM,
Sun, and Compaq servers. In addition, the firm has selected IBM WebSphere
Application Server to extend mission-critical business
applications to the Web. With its decision to adopt these products
worldwide, J.P. Morgan joins the growing roster of major financial services
firms using IBM software to support their business applications.
"Many of our core businesses already run on IBM technology," said Mike
Reilly, chief technology officer of J.P. Morgan. "This deal proves IBM
can continue to offer best-in-class technology to our businesses."
J.P. Morgan is in the process of replacing legacy database applications with
IBM's DB2 Universal Database, starting with the bank's Asset
Management Services business. By implementing IBM DB2 Universal Database,
financial services firms benefit from unmatched scalability to
support business growth, and 24-hour availability for the "no downtime"
nature of e-business. Already, DB2 is used by many top financial
services firms including Merrill Lynch and ADP Brokerage Services Group.
J.P. Morgan is also adopting VisualAge for Java as its standard tool for
developing Java applications throughout the bank. J.P. Morgan's
Global Markets and Asset Management Services businesses are already using
VisualAge for Java, which provides a powerful development
environment for writing, compiling and testing Java programming languages.
Applications built using VisualAge for Java may be deployed on
more server platforms than any other development environment in the
industry.
"We have been very pleased with our current use of VisualAge for Java," said
Mike Ashworth, head of Applications Delivery for J.P. Morgan's
Markets business. "It delivers an environment that is intuitive, extendable
and eases the task of building mission critical applications."
Based on the successful deployment of IBM WebSphere in smaller scale
applications, J.P. Morgan will implement the scalable, flexible
e-business software enterprise-wide. This will enable the company to build
and deploy high-performance applications that transform the
management of customer, partner and employee relationships.
"Today's announcement is just another example of customers who are migrating
to IBM's e-business software to power their core business
applications," said Steve Mills, general manager, IBM Software Solutions.
"IBM clearly has the most powerful value proposition in the world of
e-business, including end-to-end solutions, competitive price points and
easy migration capabilities. Nobody else brings that capability to the
market place today."
IBM is the leading technology partner to the world's financial services
industry. Working directly with its financial services customers, IBM
develops and deploys mission-critical industry-specific technology
solutions. Those solutions comprise the full range of IBM capabilities
including consulting, software, hardware, research and services. For more
information, visit: http://www.ibm.com/finance and
http://www.ibm.com/software.
Eric Miner
decided, like many companies do, to use technology from two vendors. The Street
hates Oracle and they ruled MSSQL 7 out as unable to scale to the enterprise
level. They decided on ASE and DB2. Now, if you knew what's going on you'd know
that all their trading systems run on ASE (an dit will stay that way) and it's
their distributed db of choice. You'd also know that Moragn and Sybase started a
web-based company together to deal with on-line derivatives - Cygnifi.
Sorry but I doubt folks here want hype from the marketing department.
I always point out my bias, I don't see that you have. I also don't see which
department at IBM you're with, care to state that?
As for the comments from another poster on the ASE optimizer - you really
haven't used ASE in some time have you? The issues you mention have been gone
for a very long time.
I worked for a while at a major
Later,
Eric Miner
Engineering
"These are my opinions, nobody else's"
cmitchell
budget and what your current system setup are they are going to dictate what
software you will get and if you can find a "good" DBA to run it. I have
worked with several of these databases and with different database admins
and I have found out that your database is only as good as the design and
the DBA. If booth a bad you will have a crappy database and it does not
matter how fast or how good your RDBMS/ORDBMS is or can be. And primarily
as an Oracle DBA I can say that most IT departments and DBA's don't
understand databases and the new technology around the new designs of how
databases are functioning and get stuck using only one method and fail to
keep up on with technology. I can say I have admin over 40 databases at
the same time with very little problem. And the last thing that most forget
is that you want to have a "job" and if a company can remove the DBA out of
the picture they will. That is what automation is about. I would strongly
suggest that reading would be your best bet and that you choice sometimes
not based upon knowledge but who your company partners are..example IBM
promotes DB2.....
Andrew McLauchlan <mcl...@au1.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3931C358...@au1.ibm.com...
> I use DB2 V6 and V5 and Oracle V8 daily as a DBA and much prefer to use
> DB2 . Oracle is tedious and untidy. DB2 is neat and easily tuned.
> And this is is on 50Gb to 200Gb DBs (I've used Oracle longer)
> ..Andrew
>
> leebert wrote:
> >
> > Someone else wrote:
> >
> > > What's your take on administering DB2 vs. Oracle ?
> >
> > My info on that is 3rd-hand... from what Meta Group told us (for their
$100k worth of opinion), Oracle is 2x - 3x the admin. overhead of DB2 (& DB2
is no walk in
> > the park!). Other hearsay is that takes 2x the # of DBA's to run an
Oracle shop. I guess people have money to burn. And with Oracle, you better
have plenty 'o
> > money to burn anyway... <g>
> >
> > >Is the training effort significant ?
> >
> > Obviously there's DB2 training, very much worth it if you are using it.
But the admin learning curve is a good 4 months for someone w/ MS SQL or
Sybase
> > experience.
> >
> > But if you have ever done Xbase programming, I think DB2 makes the most
sense. You have control over table spaces, buffer pools and external storage
(DB2 managed
> > RAM disks for Linux & NT w/ process address limits) that Sybase doesn't
give you.
> >
> > Not to dys Sybase. Just DB2 makes more sense from the ground up. I think
the mainframe legacy has something to do w/ DB2 being a more structured &
tunable
> > environment than Sybase. Mainframers demand that kind of tweak & tune
capability.
> >
> > >Are there 3rd pty tools such as DBArtisan/Embarcadero for DB2
> >
> > Yeh I think DBArtisan has finally caught up w/ DB2 v. 6 as well as MS
SQL 7.
> >
> > DBArtisan is a bit dangerous if you do 'migrations' from server to
server. It'll SNAFU badly on Schema-BCP migrations. It's better to stage the
schema extract
> > w/out the FK / RI , bcp manually & then slap on the FK's last.
> >
> > >How about backup and recovery and locking/contention.
> > >And does one scale better than the other ?
> >
> > W/ Oracle, readers never block writers and writers never block readers.
This is b/c of the row versioning engine ( visa vi Borland Interbase &
Postgres ). So
> > concurrency issues are gone forever, great for OLTP. The upshot is that
for smaller stuff, Oracle won't be as fast as MS SQL or Sybase, but for
truely huge
> > stuff, Oracle will keep right on chugging w/out concurrency problems.
> >
> > Last think I heard from one of MS's in-house consultant was that DB2 is
still faster at queries than Oracle. Moreover, DB2 AS/400 has Encoded Vector
Indexing -
> > this is an awesome tech: low cardinality columns are now optimizable w/
*very* compact EVI indexes. These aren't "compressed" indexes like Oracle or
Informix or
> > Red Brick, this is a new technology. DB2 does in-RAM dynamic vector-hash
bitmaps, so it doesn't need prep'd bitmaps that you have to maintain. It's
all generally
> > applicable, not an arcane maintenance problem. Hopefully DB2 UDB will
see EVI's on NT & Un*x sooner than later.
> >
> > /lee
Norris
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/pricing.htm
Philip Brown
>....
> The wording for some might be that x can do 99 for 100 and y can
>do 80 for only 20. How valuable is that 19? If it's nice but not
>necessary, I can see someone going the 80 for 20 route. This isn't
>just a point about DBMSs.
>
> Consider cars. I don't need a sportscar.
But I do. And I still got the sportscar for 20% of the price :-)
Well, okay, maybe 30% ;-)
So where is there "discount oracle license broker", I wonder? :->
--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
The word of the day is mispergitude
Darin McBride
>I always point out my bias, I don't see that you have. I also don't see which
>department at IBM you're with, care to state that?
I can't imagine that anyone could guess incorrectly given how much help Blair
gives on DB2 in c.d.ibm-db2...
Adam Ruth
(per processor) and that is good for an unlimited # of connections
regardless of type. That's for the workgroup edition, the Enterprise
Edition (which varies from $25,000 to several Million) has got unlimited
users built in.
--
Adam Ruth
InterCation, Inc.
www.intercation.com
"Norris" <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
news:8h9hqk$27bn$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
Blair Kenneth Adamache
Linux in the IBM Toronto Lab. I didn't say that DB2 was replacing Sybase at J.P.
Morgan - the press release jointly issued by J.P. Morgan and IBM said that.
Eric Miner wrote:
> Come on Blair. You know damn well that DB2 isn't 'replacing' ASE at Morgan. They
> decided, like many companies do, to use technology from two vendors. The Street
> hates Oracle and they ruled MSSQL 7 out as unable to scale to the enterprise
> level. They decided on ASE and DB2. Now, if you knew what's going on you'd know
> that all their trading systems run on ASE (an dit will stay that way) and it's
> their distributed db of choice. You'd also know that Moragn and Sybase started a
> web-based company together to deal with on-line derivatives - Cygnifi.
>
> Sorry but I doubt folks here want hype from the marketing department.
>
> I always point out my bias, I don't see that you have. I also don't see which
> department at IBM you're with, care to state that?
>
> As for the comments from another poster on the ASE optimizer - you really
> haven't used ASE in some time have you? The issues you mention have been gone
> for a very long time.
> I worked for a while at a major
>
> Later,
>
> Eric Miner
> Engineering
>
> "These are my opinions, nobody else's"
>
> Blair Kenneth Adamache wrote:
>
Blair Kenneth Adamache
internet) are free - you pay by processor, not by user.
On Workgroup Edition, you can pay $3,000 - $12,000 (depending on the number of
processors) for unlimited internet usage, or $250 per concurrent user.
Norris
Desktop and Enterprise Version?
In comp.databases.sybase Adam Ruth <ar...@intercation.com> wrote:
> I don't know Sybase, but with DB2, you buy an unlimited license of $2800
> (per processor) and that is good for an unlimited # of connections
> regardless of type. That's for the workgroup edition, the Enterprise
> Edition (which varies from $25,000 to several Million) has got unlimited
> users built in.
>
> --
> Adam Ruth
> InterCation, Inc.
> www.intercation.com
>
>
> "Norris" <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:8h9hqk$27bn$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
Adam Ruth
with a bunch of additional software, and also has some in DB stuff like
enhanced stored procedures, etc. Also Workgroup is not available on all
hardware.
--
Adam Ruth
InterCation, Inc.
www.intercation.com
"Norris" <jch...@cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
news:8hcde1$cj...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
Larry
other products bundled with UDB. THE UDB CODEBASE IS EXACTLY THE SAME AND HAS THE
SAME UDB CAPABILITIES. Enterprise allows host access (includes DB2 Connect). I
believe that you can only license WG on a machine that has up to four processors.
It is intended (license-wise) to be a cost-effective way for smaller
configurations to run UDB.
Eric Miner
We're going to have to agree to disagree. My contacts in Morgan flatly deny what the
press release says, sorry just the facts. Besides, as an engineer do you honestly
believe press releases?
BTW - could you send me a note with an address I can contact you at? I have a question.
Later, and thanks
Eric
chen_r...@my-deja.com
need to configure this under 'SQL Server Agent' -> 'operators'.
You need to spend some time to play around with SQL Enterprise Manager
to fine it out.
In article <39308747...@mindspring.com>,
*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Norris wrote:
>
> > In MSSQL, I can create a database maintainance plan in about 5
minutes using a
> > wizard that includes database consistency check and daily backup
schedule of
> > about 50 databases.
>
> Yes, we use it.
>
> Just wait 'til the SQL Agent screws you. Change the sa password, or do
something to your exchange server. Not only will the MAPI break, the SQL
Agent might get jammed. Worse, we changed the sa pwd, & it stopped doing
backups. But it kept mailing us telling us "SUCCESS."
>
> And it wouldn't work right, even when we rebuilt the maint. plans.
Even when I manually wrote jobs, step by step. So back to the old pwd.
>
> Worse, that MS SQL Agent only sends alerts to ONE e-mail address.
That's it. Just one. And maint. plans only do BACKUPs or TRAN LOG dumps
but not DIFFERENTIAL backups. What happened there? Did someone leave
DIFF's out of the spec? Hello?
>
> That SQL Agent breaks its MAPI interface twice a month. Sometimes the
only sol'n is to cycle the server. MS could've used the xp_sendmail
that's part of MS SQL 4.x up to 7. But no, sendmail's open standard,
much less reliable. So SQL 7 used the Windoze Mail API. IMO, that SQL
Agent is the
> most amaturish P-O-S I've seen.
>
> No, wait, the DB2 6.2 GUI control center also travels faster than the
speed of suck too. But at least the DB2 GUI CC isn't responsible for
fouling up your backups.
>
> > It really saves a lot of administrative effort and time and
> > I can concentrate on development as a Web Developer.
>
> I think you just, unknowingly, hit the nail on the head. MS SQL is
_more_ for developers & NT admins than it is for DBAs. MS has knowingly
built MS SQL to fit the small to midsize shop where the developer and/or
NT admin is also wearing a DBA hat. That's 90% of the apps. MS is going
for the
> markets that Intel can tackle successfully, w/ 32-bit & bridged PCI
limitations.
>
> MS focuses more on it's client tools & it shows. Its OLE-DB interfaces
out to the rest of the world is pretty good. A lot of people like SQL
Server's DTS ( I don't) & replication. But MS SQL 7 is still constrained
by the limitations of Windows & MS's developer-centric approach.
>
> Look where I sit: I'm running a state-wide data center for Texas state
gov't. MS SQL is for our small apps. Sybase for our ERP PeopleSoft apps
& medium-sized apps. Thank God I have DB2 to help me deal with this VLDB
12 gigabyte-per-week throughput on one database & a data warehousing &
mart
> project _starting_ at a terabyte. Neither SYbase nor MS SQL could keep
up with the thruput.
>
> I have a choice on the 1st project: 4 NT servers that'd cost $500k OR
1 RS/6000 Unix (AIX) box that'll cost $500k. The NT boxen (Compaqs) will
have 1/3rd the power w/ the same amt of RAM. If we get more RAM for
them, they might come out ahead slightly. But then there's the crappy
volume mgmt
> of Windows. It becomes impossible to tune disk subsystems when all you
have for volume names is D-Z.
>
> >
> >
> > In comp.databases.sybase leebert <*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com>
> > --
> > http://www.cooper.com.hk
>
> --
>
> +-----[ http://leebert.home.mindspring.com ] --------+
> It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already
knows. -- Epictetus (c.55-c.135)
>
> Black holes are where God divides by zero
> "God is a comedian playing to an audience that's too afraid to laugh."
-- Voltaire
> "If God dropped acid, would he see people?" Steven Wright
> "God made everything out of nothing, but the nothingness shows
through." Paul Valery
> "If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated."
Voltaire
> "Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?"
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
> "It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in
order to save us." Peter De Vries
> "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself" Sir
> Richard F. Burton
>
> "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I
could never give assent to the long, complicated
> statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln
> "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has
> intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei
>
> "The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd: why should the human
race think itself so superior to bees, ants, and elephants as to be put
in this unique relation to its maker? . . Christians are like a council
of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dung-hill croaking and
squeaking "for
> our sakes was the world created." Julian The Apostate
>
> Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
>
> "When the iron bird flies and horses run on
> wheels, the Tibetan people will be scattered
> like ants across the world and the Dharma
> will come to the land of the Red Man."
> - Padmasambhava (8th century)
>
> "Near the Day of Purification, there will be
> cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
> -- Hopi Prophecy (sung in the film soundtrack
> of Koyaanisqatsi)
>
> "A container of ashes might one day be thrown
> from the sky, which could burn the land and
> boil the oceans." -- Hopi Prophecy (sung in
> the film soundtrack of Koyaanisqatsi)
> +-----[ http://leebert.home.mindspring.com ] --------+
innov...@my-deja.com
*GNOSPAM*lee...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Neil Pike wrote:
> >
> > I don't know anything about Sybase, but I
would expect it to use SMTP rather
> > than MAPI. My comments are all on MS SQL
Server
>
> Now you know how my head spins as I bounce from
Sybase to MS SQL to DB2. God
> help us if we get Oracle in the shop. After
that comes Informix, Postgres SQL
> & MySQL. I'll be so eclectic my brains will
fall out, then I'll start writing
> magazine articles.
>
> /l
>
This post brings up some open source or shareware
titles. . . . .How do they compare with Oracle
8i, DB2 and MS SQL Server? I am searching for a
database that can handle and search multi-
gigabyte video and audio files. From the posts
in this forum I've gathered that I should only
consider DB2 and Oracle. Anyone have some
guidance for a non-DBA?