DB2 v Oracle
Paul Anderson
for a new system which should be capable of supporting 4000 users
(1000 concurrent). I don't know the exact number of transactions per
day yet but probably 5000 is a reasonable guess.
I have some experience of Oracle 8i, SQL Server 6.5 & 7 and Ingres 6.4
& II and know what I like and dislike about those products.
Where to you guys see the advantages and disadvantages of DB2 stacking
up against that competition.
Paul A.
Richard Head
They've got Informix's technology coming. It's worth looking at it just
for that. :-)
James Campbell
day per concurrent user? Are you sure there are no missing/additional
zeros there?
James Campbell
da...@vanguard2.freeserve.co.uk (Paul Anderson) wrote in
news:95489023.02072...@posting.google.com:
Steve Dassin
> for that. :-)
Care to be more specific? :)
Db2isfab
>up against that competition.
Jings, crivens, help my boab.
Oracle had sequences and materialised views well ahead of DB2.
You can truncate Oracle tables but DB2 as far as I know doesn't have the same
functionality.
Oracle has INITCAP, DB2 doesn't.
DB2 is a bit of a bind, Oracle isn't.
etc etc
Richard Head
I can't really, I'm kind of under an NDA. But some of the things that
Informix has that DB2 doesn't start appearing as early as 8.1, and there
are a lot of nifty features over years to come.
Or you could just buy Informix and save yourself the wait. :-)
Sergey Stepanenko
Hello Paul,
I'm pretty sure that iSeries with DB2 UDB will be the best choice.
1 - It can support that much users
2 - You will not have to pay for client licenses and it will come quite
cheaper than Oracle itself without hardware
3 - It does work good since DB2 UDB ans OS/400 are integrated for 30
years (I beleive), for that long time I would beleive that it is stable
4 - IBM DB2 is quite pushing ahead with technologies and know-how
5 - For me, there's no difference between SQL servers (almost) and I
would never trade some nice utility for stable and robust platform
Hope it would help.
Richard Head
> 3 - It does work good since DB2 UDB ans OS/400 are integrated for 30
> years (I beleive), for that long time I would beleive that it is stable
I haven't been in IT for even 20 years, and I remember the AS/400 arrival.
Serge Rielau
>Oracle had sequences and materialised views well ahead of DB2.
>
Clearly this should inflluence a buying decision, today? Aside I don't
think the materialized view race was all that "well ahead" a win for
Oracle.
If you want to go back in time, why not start with SQL the language
itself? Or the cost based optimizer?
>You can truncate Oracle tables but DB2 as far as I know doesn't have the same
>functionality.
>
ALTER TABLE T ACTIVATE NOT LOGGED INITIALLY WITH EMPTY TABLE;
COMMIT;
Also you can do a LOAD or IMPORT REPLACE with empty table which is
barely more too type.
>Oracle has INITCAP, DB2 doesn't.
>
Can't comment since semantic unknown to me.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 UDB SQL Compiler Development
IBM Software Lab, Toronto
Try the DB2 UDB V8.1 beta at
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/data/db2/
Richard Head
>
>> Oracle has INITCAP, DB2 doesn't.
>>
> Can't comment since semantic unknown to me.
I'm guessing it stands for Initial Capitals. Useful for names, I think.
Stephan Herschel
> DB2 is a bit of a bind, Oracle isn't.
>
Could you be more specific on this, please. Thanks.
Gianoele
I justa can tell you: ORACLE, better & simpler administration,
better performances.
bka
did Oracle introduce them?
DB2 doesn't have a command called truncate, but can do exactly the same thing in
its LOAD and IMPORT commands. There are more significant differences between the
two products than these areas, such as the architecture each uses for scalability
(shared disk for Oracle and shared nothing for DB2 and Informix XPS).
bka
AS/400. The AS/400 was introduced in 1988. The System/38 came out in the late
1970's. Like AS/400, it had an integrated relational database in the operating
system, and a 48-bit architecture, which allowed a fair bit of addressable
memory for that time. When the System/38 was merged with the System/36, the
hybrid was named AS/400.
Daniel Morgan
I am glad to see that this hasn't turned into a flame war.
But I don't think you are going to find any show-stopper abilities in one
product that you won't find in another with the possible exception of all
of the things SQL Server can't do or doesn't do well with high transaction
volumes. When comparing DB2 with Oracle with Informix with Sybase with the
minimal number of transactions you indicate any will do the job.
The big investment in effort is not going to be database you choose. Any
would work. The question is one of resources. Here are the questions I
would suggest that you ask.
1. What expertise does the development team have that can be leveraged?
2. What expertise does the DBA team have that can be leveraged?
3. What expertise does the SysAdmin team have that can be leveraged?
4. What training resources and books are available to fill in any gaps for
either or all of the three disciplines.
While any of these products will do the job there are significant
differences. And a few weeks of lost productivity will cost you more than
the product.
Daniel Morgan
Alexander Kuznetsov
> better performances.
"shared nothing". What's the limit on number of nodes in Oracle? 8 or
16? What's the price of ownership of a 100TB Oracle datawarehouse?
Storage of that capacity must cost more than a space shuttle, right?
pls correct me if I'm wrong
Daniel Morgan
You are wrong. I don't think anyone, not IBM, not Oracle, not Sybase,
licenses on storage capacity.
A 100TB data warehouse with one user on a machine with one CPU ...
standard edition is listed at http://store.oracle.com at $300.00. For the
enterprise edition $800 for one named user.
If you can get me a Space Shuttle for that I'll take two.
Daniel Morgan
Tokunaga T.
>
> Oracle has INITCAP, DB2 doesn't.
>
> DB2 is a bit of a bind, Oracle isn't.
>
DB2 has some builtin functions that Oracle has not.
Anyway, I made some UDFs for Oracle migration including INITCAP.
I have spent less than one day to build each of these UDFs except some
formatting functions like TO_CHAR or TO_DATE.
It may be better for DBMS to have formatting capabilities, but not
necessary. Because you can format data by other ways.
For example, COBOL has strong capability of formatting and I heard
Java has some formatting library functions(class?).
As a consequence of these, Oracle may be some DAYs or WEEKs advanced
in this area.
Now, I want consider in another areas.
For example, DB2 implemented cost based optimizer from it's first
available date.
Oracle introduced cost based optimizer later.
(perhaps from it's Version 7 or 8, I'm not sure.)
So, Oracle is near ten YEARs behind in this area.
> etc etc
Mark Townsend
Kuznetsov at Alexander...@marshmc.com wrote on 7/29/02 2:53 PM:
> What's the price of ownership of a 100TB Oracle datawarehouse?
> Storage of that capacity must cost more than a space shuttle, right?
Well - the latest 3Tb TPC-H benchamrks show Oracle getting better
performance than IBM, for about $1 million dollars less.
Mark Townsend
ton...@jp.ibm.com wrote on 7/29/02 9:45 PM:
> For example, DB2 implemented cost based optimizer from it's first
> available date.
> Oracle introduced cost based optimizer later.
> (perhaps from it's Version 7 or 8, I'm not sure.)
>
> So, Oracle is near ten YEARs behind in this area.
Oracle7, released in 1993, or thereabouts. What year was IBM DB2 Common
Server/UDB available on Unix, Windows, and OS/2 ?
Richard Head
Let me guess -- you sell services, right?
Serge Rielau
used in the benchmark?
Any customer references?
Serge Rielau
The world does not start with Unix, you know:
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/data/db2/innovation
Tokunaga T.
The DB2 I said was DB2 for MVS announced in 1983. I heard that many
technologies including optimizer of DB2/MVS were incorporated into
other platform's DB2.
Alexander Kuznetsov
I was speaking about something entirely different. "shared disk shared
nothing" search on Google brings up lots of interesting information.
I think with "shared disk" approach you cannot gradually scale up by
adding inexpensive boxes, 2 or 3 at a time. "shared disk" demands some
hi-end hardware for VLDB, and that kind of hardware is very very
pricey.
pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Alexander
Daniel Morgan
Don't play poker.
I teach RDBMS at the University of Washington.
Daniel Morgan
Burkhard Schultheis
>
>
> I justa can tell you: ORACLE, better & simpler administration,
> better performances.
Caution: The opinion above is a joke!
--
Burkhard Schultheis
Tele Data Electronic, Wagnerstr. 10, D-76448 Durmersheim
Email: schul...@tde-online.de
Phone: +49-7245-9287-21, Fax: +49-7245-9287-30
Barry Manilow
> >
> Can't comment since semantic unknown to me.
>
> Cheers
> Serge
I believe this is a function to convert only the first character of a
string to upper case. This alone is reason enough not to buy DB2 and
obviously it's existence in the UDF migration samples at
http://www7b.software.ibm.com/dmdd/library/samples/db2/0205udfs/index.html
( cheap plug ) is the work of the devil himself.