Don't want to say too much in public (there are too many folks out
there with long knives).
Remember guys : we don't want another "DB2 v Oracle" flamefest !!!
However, no vendor (whether IBM, Oracle or any other) is going to publish
a white paper which claims their own product is inferior. At least this
paper, unlike some others I've seen, doesn't claim to be "independent".
Much of what is in this paper has been trotted out on numerous occasions
before, and there were responses on IBM's website to them.
Old chestnuts among them include (from a brief glance) -
The "one codebase" claim (DB2 for LUW, which is really the only space in
which Oracle has any market share at all, is all one codebase too)
The "concurrency" claims (Oracle puts more onus on the app developer for
ensuring data integrity, DB2 is pessimistic about the ability of
programmers to cope with this)
The "better indexing" claims : but failing to mention optimizers where the
DB2 cost-based optimizer is widely recognized as being at least a
generation ahead of all the others.
The "bigger databases" claims : with the word "UNIX" inserted to ensure
that Oracle comes out on top of the list, since otherwise I believe they'd
need to give place to some databases on DB2 for z/OS.
OK, that's enough for one night.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:17:33 -0400, Tim Schaefer wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for some independent comments on this white paper either here or off-line.
http://otn.oracle.com/deploy/perform...VSDB2_PERF.PDF
If you want to contact me off-line instead of posting to this newsgroup I'd appreciate what you have to say.
Thanks, your help would be greatly appreciated,
Tim
t i m @ d a t a d . c o m
