By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,886 Members | 1,123 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,886 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

DB2, SQL Server, Oracle

P: n/a
Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has done a trade study on
DB2, SQL Server, and Oracle databases. Basically I am trying to
identify which one to chose based on "Ease of implementation", Ease of
maintenance", "Pricing" and "Ease of technical support". The criteria
I am looking at can be obtained by interviewing people who have worked
with these products. I appreciate any input I can get. Thanks, Shaun

Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
6 Replies


P: n/a
Shaun,
the f
Would you like to do a "trade" study? :-).

Thank you for not cross-posting this. I am not so sure that I agree that
you will be able to get what you need by "interviewing people"
especially on a newsgroup. I understand that you are trying to
accomplish an objective, but past questions of this nature have done
nothing but start flame wars. This is almost like a religious war, and
you are only going to succeed in finding people's strong opinions here.

The best thing for you to do is consult with a company like Gartner,
Giga, etc. ... or to construct a list of requirements based on your
application and company needs ... and then work with your sales reps
from each company to determine which one fits best. I can guarantee you
that you are going to hear for the most part that all 3 of the dbmses
that you reference are easy to implement, easy to maintain, low in
price, and have good technical support. You need to drive this back to
requirements like what type of application support do you need (MS,
Java, XML, Web Services, DSS, OLTP, etc.), what skills already exist in
your shop, what hw/sw platforms do you already have in your shop (not
only os, but middleware), what type of scalability needs do you have,
what type of growth rates are you expecting per annum, what ISVs are
involved, is data integration with other databases important, is
mainframe integration involved, etc.

Good luck!

Larry Edelstein

sh**************@lmco.com wrote:
Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has done a trade study on
DB2, SQL Server, and Oracle databases. Basically I am trying to
identify which one to chose based on "Ease of implementation", Ease of
maintenance", "Pricing" and "Ease of technical support". The criteria
I am looking at can be obtained by interviewing people who have worked
with these products. I appreciate any input I can get. Thanks, Shaun


Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
sh**************@lmco.com wrote:
Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has done a trade study on
DB2, SQL Server, and Oracle databases. Basically I am trying to
identify which one to chose based on "Ease of implementation", Ease of
maintenance", "Pricing" and "Ease of technical support". The criteria
I am looking at can be obtained by interviewing people who have worked
with these products. I appreciate any input I can get. Thanks, Shaun


Choose you product based on the experience and knowledge you (or the folks
who have to work with it) have.

--
Knut Stolze
Information Integration
IBM Germany / University of Jena
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
RdR
What I can say is all Databases are the same in terms of pricing, ease of
use, ease of technical support, being good or bad on it comes at different
times for the different vendors of those companies. I have personally
experienced these for all companies. My conclusion is, whatever database you
use, your data will always be delivered the way you planned and implemented
your database system.

Having said that, it is only DB2 (with Websphere Information Integrator)
that you can federate data from different databases. This is the reason why
we chose DB2 as our database. With Websphere Information Integrator, my data
can be in Oracle, SQL Server, Sybase, and it can appear as a DB2 table. This
is one feature that is not present in the other databases. (BTW, I do NOT
work for IBM).

If you see your company dealing with several databases and need to
consolidate data from each, Ease of implementation wise, go DB2 with
Websphere Information Integrator. You get federation capabilities,
replication capabilities (actually two, SQL Replication and Message Q type
of replication), you get log shipping capabilities for High Availability
implementations, and be able to deal with "newer" data access methods like
XML, and the ability to connect to Web Servers, SOAP Servers, and still be
able to use legacy mainframe data.

Hope this helps.

RdR
<sh**************@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has done a trade study on
DB2, SQL Server, and Oracle databases. Basically I am trying to
identify which one to chose based on "Ease of implementation", Ease of
maintenance", "Pricing" and "Ease of technical support". The criteria
I am looking at can be obtained by interviewing people who have worked
with these products. I appreciate any input I can get. Thanks, Shaun

Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
> What I can say is all Databases are the same in terms of pricing,
ease of
use, ease of technical support, being good or bad on it comes at
different
times for the different vendors of those companies. I have personally experienced these for all companies. My conclusion is, whatever
database you use, your data will always be delivered the way you planned and

implemented
your database system.

Well, I've got to respectively disagree with you there: sql server is
still the easiest to manage and develop for in my opinion, but stuck on
windows, lacks partitioning, lacks decent exception handling in its
stored procedures, is crippled from the command line - and if you
actually want to promote DTS packages from dev to test to prod it's
incredibly difficult. Oracle has a fabulous partitioning solution -
great for real-time loading, great 3rd-party support, etc. But is the
most expensive, and most complex to manage. DB2 has improved usability
& online maintenance tremendously in the last few years, and has a
price & ease of maintenance benefit over oracle in my experience now.
Still plenty of areas in which one has the edge over the other - a nice
competitive arrangement I think. :-)

Anyhow, my question is - have you worked with Websphere Information
Integrator? I thought it just became named that this year...

Are you actually federating data across multiple vendor products with
it?

Was it easy? How long did it take you to set it up, learn the product,
and slip it into production?

Do you think it would make federating a dozen db2 databases easier than
just doing it manually with nicknames & replication (if you must)?

When it breaks do you need a team of db2, oracle, j2ee, ii, and
webspere experts all in the same room to make sense out of it?

Thanks!

Buck

Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
RdR
Hi Buck,

Actually, I was already involved with it as early as March 2004 . I was
involved in the beta testing as well when it was still named DB2 Information
Integrator. In terms of using setting it up, the first moth understanding
the concepts took a bit of pain but after that, setting it up was relatively
easy. I would recommend going through a DB2 II introduction course which I
believe is still no charge under IBM's ISV program (if you are not an ISV
and there is space, there is a big chance you can get in this course). If
you attend the course, they will gladly give you the lab settings but you
have to get DB2 and DB2 II (WS II), there are 120 day test codes at IBM's
site. After that, invest in about three days of onsite consulting to have
someone come in to just show how federation, replication, setting things up
are done.

Our approach to using DB2 and WS II in consolidating our heterogeneous
databases were teo prong. For data sources below 5 million records, we just
federate accross different databases, meaning data does not leave where they
are, we just define nicknames in DB2 and just create views in case we need
to federate data from different sources. So I create a view from a bunch of
nicknames coming from Oracle, SQL, DB2 and then our reporting tool just hits
these views. For DB2 data sources bigger that 5 million records, we use Data
Propagator to replicatate a subset of this to DB2, SQL, Oracle
appropriately. We found that federation is fast and efficient only up to a
certain volume of transactions, after that performance is an issue, so we
use Data Propagator or Q Replication to distribute data out and re-federate
them back to DB2 for our reporting tool to hit.

In terms of supporting it, it is still true for us that anything IBM when it
is working is great but when it breaks, it is too tough to fix things.
Having said that, with DB2 II (or WS II) in time, you will get familiar with
its quirks. For federation, in two months, one can be a federation expert.
With replication issues especially if you are using replication to massage
data, change values, implement business rules, it may be a bit of a
challenge but if you compare using Data Propagator or Q replication or Web
Publish as part of an ETL (Extact transform and Load) tool, I will still
say, it is easier to use than Informatica or Asenctial. You get more real
time replication as well through Data Propagator or the now faster Q
replication (but you also need an MQ support person if you plan to use Q
replication).

Our approach in having support here is to have a dedicated Replication /
Federation expert. this expert need to have only basic DBA skills (such as
designing tables, executing DML, cleansing duplicate data, but highly
skilled on jdbc drivers, odbc drivers, message queues, database
connectivity. As this person gets used to the product, the support starts to
become easier (6 months heavy exposure will do).

Hope this helps.

RdR

"Buck Nuggets" <bu*********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
What I can say is all Databases are the same in terms of pricing,

ease of
use, ease of technical support, being good or bad on it comes at
different
times for the different vendors of those companies. I have personally

experienced these for all companies. My conclusion is, whatever
database you
use, your data will always be delivered the way you planned and

implemented
your database system.

Well, I've got to respectively disagree with you there: sql server is
still the easiest to manage and develop for in my opinion, but stuck on
windows, lacks partitioning, lacks decent exception handling in its
stored procedures, is crippled from the command line - and if you
actually want to promote DTS packages from dev to test to prod it's
incredibly difficult. Oracle has a fabulous partitioning solution -
great for real-time loading, great 3rd-party support, etc. But is the
most expensive, and most complex to manage. DB2 has improved usability
& online maintenance tremendously in the last few years, and has a
price & ease of maintenance benefit over oracle in my experience now.
Still plenty of areas in which one has the edge over the other - a nice
competitive arrangement I think. :-)

Anyhow, my question is - have you worked with Websphere Information
Integrator? I thought it just became named that this year...

Are you actually federating data across multiple vendor products with
it?

Was it easy? How long did it take you to set it up, learn the product,
and slip it into production?

Do you think it would make federating a dozen db2 databases easier than
just doing it manually with nicknames & replication (if you must)?

When it breaks do you need a team of db2, oracle, j2ee, ii, and
webspere experts all in the same room to make sense out of it?

Thanks!

Buck

Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
> Hope this helps.

yep - first info i've seen from the field on this product, thanks!

I typically rely much more on etl than replication - since I prefer to
transform the data (replacing text with strings, versioning, adding
related keys, denormalizing, converting for consistency, etc). But
you're right about the complexity (and cost) of commercial etl
solutions. I think our industry has been harmed by a commercial-only
etl strategy - since there's been almost no publishing & documentation
of the successful development patterns for ETL.

Anyhow, I'll look forward to seeing how this can play a role in broader
data architectures & real-time data warehousing.

Buck

Nov 12 '05 #7

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.