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]

>> Nevertheless, it (Oracle) RUNS on mainframes. Which makes your

claim above totally false.

runs, stumbles or crawls?

[bka]

>> If only IBM already had a database product hugely respected in the UNIX

market, and in fact designed specifically *for* that market, eh?

4 in the top 9, including #1:

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...5&currencyID=0

Cheapest Linux result:

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...5&currencyID=1

17 of 42 results are DB2, including 4 of 5 first place results:

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

Seems like the DB2 design gives decent performance on UNIX, Linix and
Windows.

[Data Goob]

Noons wrote:

Captain Pedantic wrote:

If only IBM already had a database product hugely respected in the UNIX
market, and in fact designed specifically *for* that market, eh?

You know: from the above, to IBM buying MySQL and re-labeling
it as "common code base DB2", there is only a very little step...

Informix Standard Engine **IS** the equivalent product to compete directly
with MySQL, but apparently nobody at Informix or IBM ever figured that one
out--despite the known clues, such as MyISAM tables, etc etc. I was told
personally by an Informix marketing exec that they "couldn't compete with
MySQL", despite at the time ( 1999-2000 ) Informix was going down in
flames. They opted to buy the racing team with their marketing budget, instead
of promoting any of their products. The racing team really helped get the
message across. Dumb fucks. Now it's too late, MySQL is the king in the
ISAM space, period, on Linux. But of course IBM is more interested in
the Java space, thusly this is why Cloudscape is given so much attention
despite the fact that there are hardly any Java applications outside
corporate environments, or installation programs. :-) When MySQL becomes
enough of a threat IBM might pull its head out and rethink SE as an open
source alternative to MySQL. But then again I doubt that will happen.

[John Carlson]

On 27 Jul 2005 18:45:45 -0700, "bka" <ba*******@yaho o.com> wrote:

If only IBM already had a database product hugely respected in the UNIX
market, and in fact designed specifically *for* that market, eh?

4 in the top 9, including #1:

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...5&currencyID=0

Cheapest Linux result:

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...5&currencyID=1

17 of 42 results are DB2, including 4 of 5 first place results:

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

Seems like the DB2 design gives decent performance on UNIX, Linix and
Windows.

Which brings up a sore point for me . . . .

WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE THE INFORMIX TPC BENCHMARKS? I get really sick
and tired of hearing "it costs too much to do that". Right, wrong, or
indifferent, if would be good to hear how Informix 10.00 stacks up
against the 'big boys'.

JWC

[John Carlson]

On 27 Jul 2005 16:17:57 -0700, "Noons" <wi*******@yaho o.com.au> wrote:

Anton Versteeg wrote:

The author forgets a couple of things:
DB2 is the only RDBMS that runs on mainframe, midrange and PC servers.

False as can be...

(Oracle is non-existent on the mainframe)

Nevertheless , it RUNS on mainframes. Which makes your
claim above totally false.

It takes a mainframe to run Oracle? I'd believe it . . . .8-)

JWC

[Serge Rielau]

po******@bebub. com wrote:

What I was trying to get across was that it appears to me that
copying data to a private area in a session, usually a temporary
table, is a technique that can be employed in a locking database
by an application to provide a read consistent view of the data
when needed. I think this adds complexity to the application and
not having to do it because the database does it for me is a real
benefit. The fact that I imagine this would be more complex when
state is not maintained was an aside that in retrospect was not
necessary and in fact detracted from the point I was trying to
make.

Undeserved credit to temp tables, actually....
Either way, glad we straightened that one out. I've heard too many
misconceptions about "optimistic locking" vs read consistency of late
and was starting to wonder whether I'm the one having it wrong. :-)

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Noons]

bka wrote:

Nevertheless, it (Oracle) RUNS on mainframes. Which makes your
claim above totally false.

runs, stumbles or crawls?

It doesn't matter: it's there. The same can be said
for udb on Windows, yet it's there.

[Noons]

John Carlson wrote:

It takes a mainframe to run Oracle? I'd believe it . . . .8-)

dunno. But one thing I know for certain:
it takes a mainframe to run DB2.

[Noons]

Data Goob wrote:

flames. They opted to buy the racing team with their marketing budget, instead
of promoting any of their products. The racing team really helped get the

Oh puh-leaze: the ONLY reason IBM bought Informix
was that it was a cheap way of buying another 5 or so %
points in the db size of user base race so they could
claim to be ahead of Oracle!

They NEVER had any plan to do anything else with Informix
other than improperly claiming their share of the market
as DB2's or IBm's.

And that's a fact.

[Mark A]

"Noons" <wi*******@yaho o.com.au> wrote in message

Oh puh-leaze: the ONLY reason IBM bought Informix
was that it was a cheap way of buying another 5 or so %
points in the db size of user base race so they could
claim to be ahead of Oracle!

They NEVER had any plan to do anything else with Informix
other than improperly claiming their share of the market
as DB2's or IBm's.

And that's a fact.

Kind of like Oracle buying Peoplesoft.