DB2 vs Oracle or Sybase
ighiurea
Hi ,
Im an Sybase and Oracle DBA , now learning DB2 v8 ..need some sugestions
and I would like to have an open debate in regards to DB2 vs Oracle or
Sybase from experts DBA's , what's missing ,what's good or not.
Any expertise will be relly apreciated!
Isabella
--
Posted via http://dbforums.com
Serge Rielau
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 UDB SQL Compiler Development
IBM Software Lab, Toronto
Visit DB2 Developer Domain at
http://www7b.software.ibm.com/dmdd/
Anton Versteeg
In my experience DB2 is a lot easier to use than Oracle, specially for
DBA's.
- For instance DB2 can have many databases per instance, Oracle can have
only 1.
- DB2 can create a new db in several minutes. Oracle needs hours.
- The Oracle ini file is a pain in the neck.
- The overal architecture of Oracle is a bit ancient, Redo logs for
instance.
- Until recently there was no good replication solution in oracle.
- etc.
Don't know much about Sybase.
ighiurea wrote:
--
Anton Versteeg
IBM Netherlands
Powell
> Hi ,
> Im an Sybase and Oracle DBA , now learning DB2 v8 ..need some sugestions
> and I would like to have an open debate in regards to DB2 vs Oracle or
> Sybase from experts DBA's , what's missing ,what's good or not.
> Any expertise will be relly apreciated!
>
> Isabella
I started as DBA on sybase 11 & 12, then worked on DB2 exclusively. I
find DB2's performance and stability quite impressive. Online
application performance was near instanteous. DBA's do not have to
schedule dump transactions regularly to clear log space. You do have
to script something that move the archived logs offline. Through it
all, DB2 does what it says, most of the time. That I can't say for
Sybase. Also, memory pointer corruptions are almost unheard of in DB2.
The agent-application-memory model is clear and easy to follow. If you
run UDB on AIX hardware there is no kernel parameters to tune even.
Plug and play DB2. So why bother put UDB on Sun? There are only few
minor complaints. Applications that span multi bases need to build a
wrapper with nicknames. In sybase it's done easier, just
dbname.schema.object. Also, C compiler is required for even sql
storeprocs. On the other hand, the come free GCC is good enough but
your sysadmin must still put it on. For Sybase,the transact sql is a
model of simplesity. In DB2, the only flow control (if-then-else) is
inside a storeproc. One would marvel at the simple functionality of
sybase as admin or developer, where in DB2 you might have to step thru
few more hoops. But DB2 gives you more at the end, and where the
rubber meets the road, user application performance. Lastly, DB2 is
highly scalable. Say you start out as small co in single site, you
would probably have 1 server, running the EE version. When you
business grows to multi sites,you can extend the same logical database
to multiple server machines by upgrading to EEE version without
changing the underlying database design. Your data will be partitioned
across different nodes (servers) but your orders table is still the
same table.
I will not speak for Oracle only to say i find many Oracle people
carries an attitude of which I am not sure it deserves.
ighiurea
Thank you Anton for all this info really apreciate,
still looking for this copy of DB2 101 for an Oracle DBA, my email is
:ighi...@telusplanet.net'
Thanks a lot,
Isabella
Originally posted by Anton Versteeg
> http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
Daniel Morgan
Anton Versteeg wrote:
> I have sent you a copy of the DB2 101 for an Oracle DBA.
>
> In my experience DB2 is a lot easier to use than Oracle, specially for
> DBA's.
>
> - For instance DB2 can have many databases per instance, Oracle can have
> only 1.
And Oracle is red and DB2 is blue. What does one thing have to do with the
other? About the only thing that your statement communicates is that you have
a personal preference for the product you know best.
>
> - DB2 can create a new db in several minutes. Oracle needs hours.
Nonsense. Unless of course you are working on a 120MHz Pentium II under
Windows.
> - The Oracle ini file is a pain in the neck.
Because you don't know it. For those that do it is mindnumbingly basic.
> - The overal architecture of Oracle is a bit ancient, Redo logs for
> instance.
Which, of course, explains why Microsoft is working so hard to duplicate them
in the next version of SQL Server.
>
> - Until recently there was no good replication solution in oracle.
> - etc.
And even today there is no single code base in DB2 and no security without
Tivoli or similar third-party products.
>
> Don't know much about Sybase.
Don't know about Oracle either I can see.
And I say all of the above as someone that started coding in the early 70's
in Fortran, went to Cobol, and has worked on DB2, Informix, Oracle, Teradata,
and a variety of other systems.
My intention is not to start a flame war but rather to point out that all of
the RDBMS products are good. Some are better at somethings others better at
others. But trolling out utter nonsense serves no useful purpose other than
to invite responses like mine.
Anyone can trash any product. Anyone that really knows the product they work
with can trash it better than those that don't. I could easily trash Oracle
... the difference between me doing it and you doing it is that I would at
least be pointing to real issues.
Daniel Morgan
larry
I think you and I are in agreement in a certain way. For example in your
statement "all of the RDBMS products are good. Some are better at somethings
others better at others." But your statement "About the only thing that your
statement communicates is that you have a personal preference for the product you
know best" also holds true for everyone ... including yourself. Many of your
criticisms of DB2 are simply product packaging statements (e.g. security).
Arguments can be made both pro and con on both sides. The point is they are not
necessarily flaws of DB2.
It is interesting that you state that the Oracle.ini file is not a pain if you
know it. Of course. But that statement can be made for any feature of any
database!
I think it is the original poster who is being unrealistic if he/she thought they
were going to get anything useful out of a newsgroup question like that ..
especially that general. The key is ... you take a look at your options ... you
look at your existing environment. You look at things like skills, cost of
ownership, application requirements. Then you study the features of your db
options and decide which can best meet your needs.
We shouldn't even get into the single-code base issue or security issue ...
because they represent what could be non-issues for people. And there are
arguments that can be made to support the fact that DB2 has ample security and a
single-code base. Similar issues can be raised on the Oracle side. It's a matter
of interpretation.
Larry Edelstein
Daniel Morgan
larry wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> I think you and I are in agreement in a certain way. For example in your
> statement "all of the RDBMS products are good. Some are better at somethings
> others better at others." But your statement "About the only thing that your
> statement communicates is that you have a personal preference for the product you
> know best" also holds true for everyone ... including yourself. Many of your
> criticisms of DB2 are simply product packaging statements (e.g. security).
> Arguments can be made both pro and con on both sides. The point is they are not
> necessarily flaws of DB2.
>
> It is interesting that you state that the Oracle.ini file is not a pain if you
> know it. Of course. But that statement can be made for any feature of any
> database!
>
> <snipped>
Exactly my point on all counts.
We always like best that which we know best. It is just the nature of the beast.
And most of the (A) is better than (B) stuff is like two carpenters arguing over
which brand of hammer is best.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp
(remove one 'x' from my email address to reply)
Jeremy Rickard
[lots of good points snipped]
> In DB2, the only flow control (if-then-else) is inside a storeproc.
Or inside an atomic transaction don't forget, whereupon it is compiled
into a query rather than a C procedure (at present).
Jeremy Rickard
Fan Ruo Xin
Paul Vernon
news:fb6e3cbd.03042...@posting.google.com...
> [snip] . In DB2, the only flow control (if-then-else) is
> inside a storeproc.
Wrong.
C:\SQLLIB\BIN>db2 begin atomic if 1=0 then values 1; else values 0; end if ;
end
DB20000I The SQL command completed successfully.
For more useful examples see the 'Compound SQL (dynamic)' section of 'SQL
Statements' in the reference manual.
E.g.
BEGIN ATOMIC
FOR row AS
SELECT pk, c1, discretize(c1) AS d FROM source
DO
IF row.d is NULL THEN
INSERT INTO except VALUES(row.pk, row.c1);
ELSE
INSERT INTO target VALUES(row.pk, row.d);
END IF;
END FOR;
END
Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services
Powell
By your argument then no product is ever better or worse than another.
I really don't buy that. Some are junks or serve a purpose for a while
then better product comes along and replace it, and they belong to the
dust bin of histoy. You really have to focus on where the rubber meets
the road in terms of RDMS: performance, costs of ownership,
scalability...those types of issues. All I can say is Oracle folks
seemed to carry an attitude that I don't think their product warrants
and I know where that came from, market share. Last I read, that
coveted position is shifting.
-Powell
Daniel Morgan <damo...@exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3EAAA28E...@exxesolutions.com>...
Daniel Morgan
Powell wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> By your argument then no product is ever better or worse than another.
> I really don't buy that.
Neither do I because that is not what I intended. My point was that each product is different. And depending
upon a specific requirement one may be far superior than the other. But that superiority is based upon a
specific requirement. It is not better or worse generically.
Let me use my hammer analogy as an example. A sledge hammer is great for busting concrete whereas a claw
hammer is not. The reverse is equally true.
If one wants to go through the trouble of driving the question "Which is best" by supplying the full
specification including hardware, operating system, security requirements, performance requirements, in-house
expertise, upgrade requirements, applications to be supported, funding available, number of simultaneous
connected users, requirement for web, Java, XML, etc. one can give definitive answer as to which is best in
the ONE and only that ONE circumstance.
All of the nonsense in these usenet groups is just marketing hyperbole. The equivalent of asking which laws
are better ... those in the State of Connecticut or those in the Province of Alberta.
> Some are junks or serve a purpose for a while
> then better product comes along and replace it, and they belong to the
> dust bin of histoy. You really have to focus on where the rubber meets
> the road in terms of RDMS: performance, costs of ownership,
> scalability...those types of issues. All I can say is Oracle folks
> seemed to carry an attitude that I don't think their product warrants
> and I know where that came from, market share. Last I read, that
> coveted position is shifting.
>
> -Powell
>
> <snipped>
Cost of ownership is meaningless without a clear understanding of what is being owned. I've no doubt I can
come up with examples, based on commercially available software applications, that will make any RDBMS
perform better than any other. You can't just throw around jargon words and think one solution is best.
IBM folks think Oracle folks have an attitude. Oracle foks thing SQL Server people have an attitude (well
that and an inability to read). SQL Server folks think Sybase folks have an attitude. And Sybase folks think
Informix .... You get the idea.
We all have attitudes. So what?
Daniel Morgan
Anton Versteeg
Daniel Morgan wrote:
>Exactly my point on all counts.
>
>We always like best that which we know best. It is just the nature of the beast.
>
>And most of the (A) is better than (B) stuff is like two carpenters arguing over
>which brand of hammer is best.
>--
>Daniel Morgan
>http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp
>(remove one 'x' from my email address to reply)
>
>
>
>
--
Anton Versteeg
IBM Netherlands
Anton Versteeg
Daniel Morgan wrote:
>Comments interspersed.
>
>Anton Versteeg wrote:
>
>
>
>>I have sent you a copy of the DB2 101 for an Oracle DBA.
>>
>>In my experience DB2 is a lot easier to use than Oracle, specially for
>>DBA's.
>>
>>- For instance DB2 can have many databases per instance, Oracle can have
>>only 1.
>>
>>
>
>And Oracle is red and DB2 is blue. What does one thing have to do with the
>other? About the only thing that your statement communicates is that you have
>a personal preference for the product you know best.
>
>
Not quite. It is very handy to have more than 1 database in an instance.
Don't you agree that there is a lot of overhead (memory, cpu) for each
instance?
>
>
>>- DB2 can create a new db in several minutes. Oracle needs hours.
>>
>>
>
>Nonsense. Unless of course you are working on a 120MHz Pentium II under
>Windows.
>
>
No, it was an pentium III of 1.2 GB. Yes it was windows but for DB2 that
doesn't make any difference.
>
>
>>- The Oracle ini file is a pain in the neck.
>>
>>
>
>Because you don't know it. For those that do it is mindnumbingly basic.
>
>
>
>>- The overal architecture of Oracle is a bit ancient, Redo logs for
>>instance.
>>
>>
>
>Which, of course, explains why Microsoft is working so hard to duplicate them
>in the next version of SQL Server.
>
>
>>- Until recently there was no good replication solution in oracle.
>>- etc.
>>
>>
>
>And even today there is no single code base in DB2 and no security without
>Tivoli or similar third-party products.
>
>
>
>>Don't know much about Sybase.
>>
>>
>
>Don't know about Oracle either I can see.
>
>
I never said I am an Oracle expert.
>And I say all of the above as someone that started coding in the early 70's
>in Fortran, went to Cobol, and has worked on DB2, Informix, Oracle, Teradata,
>and a variety of other systems.
>
>My intention is not to start a flame war but rather to point out that all of
>the RDBMS products are good. Some are better at somethings others better at
>others. But trolling out utter nonsense serves no useful purpose other than
>to invite responses like mine.
>
>Anyone can trash any product. Anyone that really knows the product they work
>with can trash it better than those that don't. I could easily trash Oracle
>... the difference between me doing it and you doing it is that I would at
>least be pointing to real issues.
>
>Daniel Morgan
>
>
>
--
Anton Versteeg
IBM Netherlands
Powell
Powell
"Paul Vernon" <paul....@ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:<b8h0ei$54ka$1...@gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...
Blair Kenneth Adamache
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030509/95193_1.html
Daniel Morgan
If I thought the only criterion by which one judges an RDBMS was speed
of a hand-picked, hand-tuned, OLTP system I'd be sweating.
Luckily I know that all of the major RDBMS products, Oracle, DB2,
Sybase, Informix, and SQL Server are more than adequate for almost all
uses. And that there are far more important things to consider. The
primary one being my personal bank balance. And that is based solely on
$/hr. and jobs available ... not benchmarks.
damo...@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Serge Rielau
Stop that.. How can we get a good flame going with you posting
reasonable and useful content ;-)
Blair Kenneth Adamache
$/hour for consultants? That might be the database that is hardest to use.
Pablo Sanchez
news:3EBBF776...@yahootoomuchspam.com:
> So the best database in your opinion is the one that generates the
> most $/hour for consultants? That might be the database that is
> hardest to use.
Exactly. And hardest doesn't make it technically superior either.
--
Pablo Sanchez, blueoak Database Engineering
http://www.blueoakdb.com
Daniel Morgan
> So the best database in your opinion is the one that generates the most
> $/hour for consultants? That might be the database that is hardest to use.
>
> <snipped>>
>
Might be. Exactly why would that be my problem. ;-)
I don't see people abandoning C for Pascal or Basic. Do you?
Daniel Morgan
No. But it may make it the most financially rewarding to know.
Microsoft's operating system is not technically superior to OS/390 or
AIX. Exactly how has that hurt Bill Gates and Paul Allen?
Brien Schultz
DB2 UDB - Fastest per dollar, works with almost any OS. Has the brightest
future in my opinion.
MSSQL - Easiest to use hands down. VERY flexible. Only works on NT boxes.
If every PC was an NT PC I would ONLY use MSSQL (lol...provided they didn't
crash twice a month for no apparent reason).
Oracle - Tons of tools work with it, tons of users know it. Supports a few
OSs.
MySQL - No thrills DB. Great for a huge address book app ;) Base package
doesn't even support triggers or unions. Wouldn't trust it with a mission
critical task.
...anywayz, that's my PERSONAL opinion. I'm moving more and more towards
DB2 because speed and reliability almost always out-weigh everything else
with our clients.
"Pablo Sanchez" <pa...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:Xns93768DF4BD154...@216.166.71.233...
pkumar...@gmail.com
:) cheers...
Jerry Stuckle
> I am a developer..and really amused and happy to see flame-war among so called DBAs.... always irritate and show inability whenever ask some changes to do in database... can't you guys dump your attitude and find good things of different RDBMS as we find with languages.
>
>
> :) cheers...
>
Picking a database is just like picking a language - you define the
problem and what you need to solve that problem. Then you pick an
appropriate language (in this case database) which will solve that problem.
And generally you will have more than one choice in languages
(databases). So you need to pick the one which suits your needs best.
This often includes what your group is already familiar with (rather
than having to learn something new).
There is no one language or database which suits all situations.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Mladen Gogala
> I am a developer.
That's your problem. We have "don't ask, don't tell" policy on this group.
Your coming out of the closet was completely unnecessary.
>.and really amused and happy to see flame-war among so
> called DBAs.... always irritate and show inability whenever ask some
> changes to do in database...
years and nobody has ever accused me of "showing inability". On the other
hand, I've had to put down many "business rules in the applications"
rebellions, caused by misconceptions of Java scribblers and not knowing
how to write triggers and procedures.
> can't you guys dump your attitude and find
> good things of different RDBMS as we find with languages.
DB2. It's a great database, technologically more advanced than Oracle. The
latest "Oracle In-Memory" release, which offers columnar store for the OLTP
data is exactly the same thing as the BLU Acceleration, which precedes it
by approximately a year. The fabled "multi-tenancy" is the ability to
create more than one database under one instance and costs $10k/CPU core.
That exists in DB2 since the time immemorial and is completely free. There
is no "flame war" among different DBA's. You have a wrong picture about DBA
people.
--
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com