No future for DB2

[rkusenet]

This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp

[bka]

>> WTF, ...wanker, ...bullshit

Thanks for elevating the tone of this discussion in your usual manner.
Your professionalism and witty repartee are a beacon to us all. Your
cut, you thrust, your rhetoical flourish, they leave us almost
speechless.

But there sure are a lot of company and product names on those TPC
websites - can it really mean nothing?

[Matt Emmerton]

"bka" <ba*******@yaho o.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ z14g2000cwz.goo glegroups.com.. .

WTF, ...wanker, ...bullshit

Thanks for elevating the tone of this discussion in your usual manner.
Your professionalism and witty repartee are a beacon to us all. Your
cut, you thrust, your rhetoical flourish, they leave us almost
speechless.

But there sure are a lot of company and product names on those TPC
websites - can it really mean nothing?

If you look at those company names closely, and strike off anyone who hasn't
published in the last 2 years, you will get a better sense of who is in the
game and who is not.

--
Matt Emmerton

[Larry]

Until Oracle is in the lead ... then it means something?

Larry

Noons wrote:

bka apparently said,on my timestamp of 29/07/2005 1:57 AM:

This is not crawling:

WTF CARES?

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...p?id=104041401

Oh Gawd! Another tpc wanker...

No crawling is done on the 4 DB2 Windows results here:

WTF CARES?

http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch...ype=&version=2

and it goes on and on....

Haven't you got it yet? TPC is worth 0, zero, nada, zilch
to establish ANYTHING about ANY product.
Got it? Now, kindly take the tpc bullshit and shove it.

[DA Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1122650135 .580562@yasure. ..

They are irrelevant and you know that.

Corporate strategy and product decisions are not made by AE's.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

What I said is that Oracle is not pitching PeopleSoft to customers
interested in HR systems. They are pitching Oracle HR exclusively, even
though PeopleSoft is superior.

And what I said is that if it is true it is irrelevant to what I wrote.
Perhaps fodder for a different thread.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Larry wrote:

Until Oracle is in the lead ... then it means something?

Larry

No ... those benchmarks are irrelevant period. It doesn't matter
whether they show lightspeed or glacial. They are irrelevant as
are the bribe-induced garbage that spews from Gartner and other
shills.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Bob Jones]

>> I don't find DB2 to be any easier to learn than Oracle

There are corners of the product that can be a little more complex -
perhaps locking sometimes, plans and static sql if you decide to use
it. On the flip side there are areas that are much easier. The
glaring one is backup & restore, that's a critical activity that's a
piece of cake compared to oracle.

In fact, the tasks you pointed out are used much more frequently than backup
and recovery.

In my opinion db2 is pretty easy to learn - it would have been far more
difficult to get these guys to the same point in Oracle.

This is a pure assumption. Apparently they have not been Oracle trained.
On the flip side, SQL Server, MySQL, and Postgresql would have been
even easier than DB2 - but then again their scalability limitations
(parallelism/partitioning/optimizer/etc) would have pushed so much
extra complexity into the design it probably would have been tougher
after all.

I agree that SQL Server admin is easier to learn, but development is another
story. MySQL is absolutely not easier to learn, perhaps fewer things to
learn due to lack of features.

[rkusenet]

"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1122685628 .347635@yasure. ..

Larry wrote:

Until Oracle is in the lead ... then it means something?

Larry

No ... those benchmarks are irrelevant period. It doesn't matter
whether they show lightspeed or glacial. They are irrelevant as
are the bribe-induced garbage that spews from Gartner and other
shills.

You are saying this ?????????

more than a year back I posted this:-

" After all I know of many Informix installation
which switched over to Oracle just because they know Oracle won't
go away, even if it means shelling huge amount of money
to get a performance not comparable with their earlier Informix one. "

This was your response:-

" If Informix performance is better than that of Oracle ... perhaps you
would be so kind as to show me and others where that is demonstrated:
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/result s/tpcc_perf_resul ts.asp?result type=all
"

This is the thread:
http://tinyurl.com/ct6or

I hate to say this, for an academician, your integrity is no better than
Oracle
sales rep. You keep changing your views based on convenience.

[Larry]

I don't think you could convince the Oracle marketing people of that for
the temporary periods when they have been in the lead ...

Larry

DA Morgan wrote:

Larry wrote:

Until Oracle is in the lead ... then it means something?

Larry

No ... those benchmarks are irrelevant period. It doesn't matter
whether they show lightspeed or glacial. They are irrelevant as
are the bribe-induced garbage that spews from Gartner and other
shills.

[Mark A]

"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1122685628 .347635@yasure. ..

No ... those [TPC]benchmarks are irrelevant period. It doesn't matter
whether they show lightspeed or glacial. They are irrelevant as
are the bribe-induced garbage that spews from Gartner and other
shills.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

Oracle Corporation is a founding member of the TPC and has been a very
strong supporter of the organization over the years.

Perhaps you should talk with Meikel Poess, Principal Software Developer,
Oracle Corporation (I got this title form an email he sent to me).

Meikel is (unless he has given up the post recently) is the Chairman of the
TPC H and TPC-R Subcommittees, who helped me with the TPC dbgen program
which generates data for the TPC-H benchmark.

Meikel has written serveral articles about benchmarking in general and the
TPC benchmarks in particular:

"Generating Thousand Benchmark Queries in Seconds" by Meikel Poess and John
M. Stephens, Jr.
http://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/IND2P3.PDF
"The authors would like to thank the TPC, and the members of the TPC-DS
subcommittee for the contributions to this effort."

"TPC-DS, Taking Decision Support Benchmarking to the Next Level," by Meikel
Pöss, Bryan Smith, Lubor Kollár, Per-Ake Larson
Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of
data
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=564691.564759

New TPC Benchmarks for Decision Support and Web Commerce" by Meikel Poess
and Chris Floyd, ACM SIGMOD Record, Volume 29 Issue 4.
http://www.sigmod.org/record/issues/0012/standards.pdf
"For as long as there have been DBMS's and applications that use them, there
has been interest in the performance characteristics that these systems
exhibit. This month's column describes some of the recent work that has
taken place in TPC, the Transaction Processing Performance Council."

Have you no shame, Daniel A. Morgan.

[Buck Nuggets]

> In fact, the tasks you pointed out are used much more frequently than backup

and recovery.
Depends. Locking generally isn't much of an issue in data warehousing,
and it usually isn't a challenge in db2 other than in exceptionally
high-volume databases.

I never bother with static sql, so I haven't had any challenges there
in years.

Recoveries? Yeah, I seldom need to recover databases. But I think
that a primary responsibility of a dba is to be able to restore a
database. :-) So, I'm a big believer to running backup/restore drills
if necessary to develop that skill.
This is a pure assumption. Apparently they have not been Oracle trained. True. Nor had they been db2-trained prior to starting this project.
But I've got the same amount of experience with both databases, and
have built similar data warehouse projects on both. Both are great for
warehousing, with each having cool strengths. Oracle's partition
management and third-party support is fantastic. DB2's MDC (like
partitioning) is both fantastic and included in the base product. And
supporting and explaining db2 is much easier in my experience.
I agree that SQL Server admin is easier to learn, but development is another
story.
I've always found sql server easy to set up for non-production
environments, but a royal pain in the butt for real production - where
I prefer batch maintenance operations that can be managed via cvs to
reentering gui commands in production.
MySQL is absolutely not easier to learn, perhaps fewer things to learn due to
lack of features.

Right - it's a very lite feature set.