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

[Bob Jones]

>

You seem to be talking about DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows (LUW) and
DB2 for z/OS as if they are one product and confusing the entire issue we
are discussing.

Secondly, DB2 on both the mainframe and LUW is far easier to learn and
administer than Oracle, at least for now. As Oracle gets easier to use,
the number of people required to administer it (DBA's) will decrease.

I have been working with both Oracle and DB2. I don't find DB2 to be any
easier to learn than Oracle, especially DB2 on z.

[Buck Nuggets]

> 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.

Over the last year two folks on my team received their db2
certification. Shockingly, they weren't in the 50s, these guys are in
the mid-twenties. We worked together every thursday at lunch, went
through the cert book, and both passed easily. These guys learned
easily, on the job, with *zero* formal training. One of them is now
the development and production dba for a very large data warehouse and
set of marts. Knows the hardware, os, database configuration and
tunings, optimizes the user's sql, designs new tables, create the etl
as well as aggregation code, etc. Prior to twelve months ago he had
never seen a database beyond submission of sql, now we're partnering on
taking this real-time warehouse to high-availability. Oh yeah, and he
also supported a critical oltp database as well.

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.

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.

[DA Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

Peoplesoft is already superior to Oracle HR, but Oracle is pushing their HR
package over Peoplesoft.
That is not what is happening in Redwood Shores but thanks for your
opinion. I will give it all the consideration it is worth.
There are more and more Informix compatibility syntax commands in the DB2
products, as documented in the manuals.

Leading to the eventual demise of one of the two products eh.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

You seem to be talking about DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows (LUW) and DB2
for z/OS as if they are one product and confusing the entire issue we are
discussing.

So now they are separate products?

Either way ... I don't recall making a single reference to Linux, UNIX,
or Windows. Perhaps my reference to COBOL, CICS, MVS JCL, OS/390, z/OS,
TSO, VSAM, IMS, REXX, ISPF, and CLISTS confused you.

z/OS runs on Windows now? Didn't realize how far out of the loop I was. ;-)

--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Darin McBride wrote:

DA Morgan wrote:

Data Goob wrote:

Even if your statements are correct ( following the trend here :-) DB2
scales better than Oracle, or SQL-Server.

And looking at Microsoft as the poster-child for this discussion lets
agree that superior technology has never one the day over superior
marketing. Ask the fine people who developed Fox how they feel about
MS Access. Or the fine people who developed OS/2 about Windows. Or
even your new friends at Informix how they feel about DB2. ;-)

I'm betting the Informix developers like DB2 way more now than they
did, say, a few years ago. ;-)

I'll let them speak for themselves.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

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 Oracle back-up takes two mouse clicks ... how complex is that?

Better take a look at 9i and 10g RMAN and the easy setup using OEM and
the Grid Control. I think your experience with Oracle is dated.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

- stating that you actually like db2 and then complaining about ibm's
marketing is bizarre.
Why? I like Oracle but I think their marketing nearly non-existant and
openly criticize it in almost every public speaking engagement.

I didn't take a loyalty oath and neither did anyone else here unless
they are a paid employee or shill for a software developer or reseller.

We should all feel free to applaud the best and condemn the worst.
Perhaps go to some islamic/hindi/budhist group and tell them that
their god is irrelevant because you found more 10x as many books on
christianity as their religion?

Software is a tool ... not a religion. I'd suggest some a scotch and
some perspective if you can truly equate the two in your mind.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Buck Nuggets]

DA Morgan wrote:

Software is a tool ... not a religion. I'd suggest some a scotch
and some perspective if you can truly equate the two in your
mind.

lol, well if your hundreds of trolls and flames on
comp.databases.ibm-db2 aren't due to dogma, then what's your excuse?
shilling? some deep-seated insecurity? seriously, why do you spend
all of your time this way?

[Buck Nuggets]

DA Morgan wrote:

In Oracle back-up takes two mouse clicks ... how complex is that?
Better take a look at 9i and 10g RMAN and the easy setup using OEM and
the Grid Control. I think your experience with Oracle is dated.

Yep, it's a year old. Last year I was supporting a mission-critical
300 gbyte oracle 9i database running over 100,000 transactions a day.

Personally, I'd like to be prepared for something besides a 'best-case
recovery scenario'. Two mouse-clicks? Please, save that for kids in
database 101 who don't know any better.

buck

[BobTheDataBaseBoy]

Serge Rielau wrote:

Superboer wrote:

This is a funny way of looking at. Obviously Oracle's none locking
engine is perfectly suited to scaling multi user applications,
particularly when most people are developing for stateless clients.
ahum does the above explain why informix was faster on a 5 times
smaller machine then obstacle...????

Superboer.

Changed the subject lines and following up on what Knut started.

How does Oracles snapshot isolation help with stateless clients.
To the best of my knowledge snapshot semantics only operate on either a
statement or a transaction level. In a stateless scenario I'd assume
that teh application transaction covers at least two database
transactions. A read phase wher the resultset is displayed at the client
and a separate write phase where the modified data is written back.
How does snapshot isolation help here?
Informix supports versioning columns which can be used by the app to
prevent overwriting other users changes across DB transaction boundaries.
MS SQL server has a somewhat similar approach and even buried optimistic
locking into the cursor logic (not applicable in a stateless enviroment
(no cursor open).
I see tha value of snapshot isolation for certain purposes. I don't see
it for a 3 tier web application....

well. may be not. i went back to Weikum/Vossen, chapter 5. sounds like
an approach. and a google for +multiversion +concurrency +"3 tier"
came up with this. kind of funny, really.

http://sapdb.2scale.net/moin.cgi/Fea...hanceProposals

BTDBB

Thoughts?
Cheers
Serge

[Matt Emmerton]

"Buck Nuggets" <bu*********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...

you could at least make your trolling a little less obvious:

- stating that the number of books = product viability is pretty
primitive logic. I think most of us are aware of the connection
between name recognition and massive book purchases by aspiring
technologies (see all the php/mysql books for dummies, etc).

- stating that ibm is only good at mainframes will be caught by
anyone paying attention to the industry - and familiar with
Power5/PowerPC CPUs, pseries & xseries hardware, websphere, db2, etc.

- stating that you actually like db2 and then complaining about ibm's
marketing is bizarre. The only database that's got more low-key
marketing than db2 is postgresql - and it doesn't have a vendor!

What would you call http://www.enterprisedb.com? Sure, they haven't reached
"commercial release" status now but they definitely look like a commercial
vendor to me!

--
Matt Emmerton

[Mark A]

"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1122600962.204347@yasure...

Mark A wrote:

You seem to be talking about DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows (LUW) and
DB2 for z/OS as if they are one product and confusing the entire issue we
are discussing.

So now they are separate products?

Either way ... I don't recall making a single reference to Linux, UNIX,
or Windows. Perhaps my reference to COBOL, CICS, MVS JCL, OS/390, z/OS,
TSO, VSAM, IMS, REXX, ISPF, and CLISTS confused you.

z/OS runs on Windows now? Didn't realize how far out of the loop I was.
;-)

--
Daniel A. Morgan

There article in question (remember the article?) was predicting the future
of DB2 for LUW, not DB2 for z/OS. Yes they are separate products, but they
are reasonably close at the DML level.

The fact that you didn't make any reference to DB2 for LUW and the article
focused on that product, is the basic problem with your analysis.

[Serge Rielau]

DA Morgan wrote:

Serge Rielau wrote:

In 10 years there will be a lot more XQuery.
I fear who reigns RDBMS in 10-15 years is as interesting as IMS
marketshare.

I don't think so. XQuery will not stand the test of time any more
than storying XML in the database will. XML was developed for a
purpose. Storing it and querying it makes no sense, wastes resources,
and is highly inefficient.

*lol* Apparently Mark T. (speak up man!)and his opponents at MS and IBM
disagree.
There isn't one major DBMS that hasn't realized that XQuery is a must
have. Oracle 10gR2 has it, SQL Server 2005 has it, Viper has it.

The hierarchical DBMS of the world will stick around
The RDBMS will stick around
and this new breed of DBMS will find their place.
All that is part of Information Management.

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

[Mark A]

"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1122600765.768696@yasure...

That is not what is happening in Redwood Shores but thanks for your
opinion. I will give it all the consideration it is worth.

Leading to the eventual demise of one of the two products eh.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

Redwood Shores? I am talking about Oracle sales reps and what they pitching
to companies looking for an HR package. I know of one company in San Jose
where in the last 30 days Oracle sales people are only offering Oracle as a
HR solution, completely pretending like Peoplesoft does not exist. I suspect
that is pretty much true across the board.

But I have no doubt that Oracle Application Development Lab will steal as
much Peoplesoft technology to include on Oracle Apps as they possibly can.
But at the moment, Oracle sales reps are only selling Oracle solutions.

Yes, I expect the Peoplesoft products to eventually be withdrawn from
marketing.

[bka]

Much and most are not identical terms.

[Noons]

Serge Rielau wrote:

In 10 years there will be a lot more XQuery.
I fear who reigns RDBMS in 10-15 years is as interesting as IMS marketshare.

Good point.

Yet:
XML, how deranged is that? Store your metadata with your data
and send it out for every single instance of data. Over and over
again.

"100Mrows? No problem, sir: we'll send you the metadata for every
column of those rows 100Mtimes."
<pause/>
"hello IBM? Can I buy some more disk?"

Reminds me of the "to-be-sure-to-be-sure" old Irish gag.
What a sad joke IT has turned into...

[Buck Nuggets]

Art,

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I've built quite a few massive databases on db2, oracle, informix,
sybase, and sql server - and Informix is my favorite.

Meanwhile, maybe some of that informix elegance is rubbing off on db2:
it has improved so much in the last few years that it's also become
pretty fun to work with. And the workgroup license along with large
memory footprint, mdc, mqt, and a fast four-way smp can handle a vast
amount of data and queries both cheap and easy.

buck

[Noons]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

you could at least make your trolling a little less obvious:
I didn't start it, nuggets-boy. But I'll end it if I want to
and when I want to. Not because you belched. Clear enough?
- stating that you actually like db2 and then complaining about ibm's
marketing is bizarre.
No. You're just not intelligent enough to understand it.

Isn't there some other group you could go spend time at for a while?
Yes. It's called comp.databases.oracle.server. Where I am now.
It's you effing deranged lot that keep coming here with these
piss poor and infantile attempts at ad-hominem attacks.
You don't see me starting threads in db2 groups, do you nuggy-boy?
So, piss off you and your veiled threats before I clip you across
the ears.
Perhaps go to some islamic/hindi/budhist group and tell them that their
god is irrelevant because you found more 10x as many books on
christianity as their religion?

I don't start threads outside of c.d.o.s., moron.
You got the wrong person.

[Noons]

Serge Rielau wrote:

There isn't one major DBMS that hasn't realized that XQuery is a must
have. Oracle 10gR2 has it, SQL Server 2005 has it, Viper has it.
"must have" != "used", Serge.
The hierarchical DBMS of the world will stick around
The RDBMS will stick around
and this new breed of DBMS will find their place.
All that is part of Information Management.

You're right, of course. Except for the volumes.

[Noons]

John Bailo wrote:

ib****@yahoo.com wrote:

I completely agree. No future for DB2, at all.

IBM created the World's Chess Champion.

If they want to make DB2 the world's database champion, they will do
so...with ease.

--

Typical fanfare logic...

[Serge Rielau]

Noons wrote:

Serge Rielau wrote:

There isn't one major DBMS that hasn't realized that XQuery is a must
have. Oracle 10gR2 has it, SQL Server 2005 has it, Viper has it.

"must have" != "used", Serge.

True enough. time will tell..

The hierarchical DBMS of the world will stick around
The RDBMS will stick around
and this new breed of DBMS will find their place.
All that is part of Information Management.

You're right, of course. Except for the volumes.

Again, time will tell.
Being a relation person myself I'm not speaking what I wish to become
true, I speak of what I fear to become true.

I do see ISVs which handle all their (fat) client side work in XML and
XQuery and all the DBMS does is store the shredded data.
Ironically this is quite similar to what the research DBMS (KRISYS) I
worked on at University did.
These ISVs save a lot of complexity by not having to shred and rebuild
the documents.

IMHO in the early days of IT (when I was playing in the dirt...) the
database ruled and the apps were made to fit. Nowadays the trend is that
the app rules and the DBMS is made to fit.
T'is what I see anyways...

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

[Noons]

Serge Rielau wrote:

IMHO in the early days of IT (when I was playing in the dirt...) the
database ruled and the apps were made to fit. Nowadays the trend is that
the app rules and the DBMS is made to fit.
T'is what I see anyways...

Sure. But there is still a very clear limit: going back to
the volumes bit I mentioned above. Those of us who still have
to process serious amounts of data in as little time as possible
are still using good old C/C++, shell scripts, perl here and there
and maybe in a moment of light-headed enthusiasm, python/php. (Now,
THOSE are interesting languages!)

Because very clearly Java, J2EE and XML technologies haven't
got a SINGLE chance in heck of ever coping with serious volumes
and STILL remain cost-effective. And that has been made
painfully clear to me beyond any doubt: nowadays that I have to
cope again with seriously large data volumes instead of the total
JOKE of Java "apps" I've had to deal with for the last 4 years.
(before the usual band of demented CRETINS jumps in with the
"internet shopping carts" and the "12-table schemas": I don't give
a CRACK about any of that! I'm talking about serious volumes of
data processing, with SENSIBLY priced hardware. Get lost.
Not interested. You're a waste of time and space. Capice?)
Agree with you: IMS, RDBMS and XQuery will all find the appropriate
niches. But when it comes to speed, IMS will reign supreme.
When it comes to volume, RDBMS will eat everything else for breakfast.

And somewhere in between the cracks will be the shopping carts
sending their schema meta-data all over the place with a little bit
of data interspersed here and there.

Of course: time will tell. Well, at least I intend to
be listening! ;)

[Paul]

"Mark A" <no****@nowhere.com> wrote:

But I have no doubt that Oracle Application Development Lab will steal as
much Peoplesoft technology to include on Oracle Apps as they possibly can.

You can hardly steal that which you have purchased.

Maybe you meant "integrated as much Peoplesoft technology to include
on Oracle Apps as they possibly can"?
Paul...

--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.1.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, as a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.

[Serge Rielau]

Noons wrote:

Sure. But there is still a very clear limit: going back to
the volumes bit I mentioned above. Those of us who still have
to process serious amounts of data in as little time as possible
are still using good old C/C++, shell scripts, perl here and there
and maybe in a moment of light-headed enthusiasm, python/php. (Now,
THOSE are interesting languages!) Funny, I thought assembly language to rules supreme.
Layers of abstraction:
microcoding,
assembly,
C/C++
Java
....

Folks are debating DBA skills in these forums. Ever tried to get C/C++
skills? It's a b**** to get a good C programmer nowadays.
Certainty the kids who wrote C when they were 16 and hit the job with 10
years experience don't exist anymore.
Point being, you wouldn't go back to micro-coding, you wouldn't go back
to assembly. Too expensive in labour, too unwieldy.
C/C++ is already turning into a niche skill.
The abstraction layer just keeps on rising because Moore's law and
inflation favours throwing Hz and bytes at any problem over brain.
Because very clearly Java, J2EE and XML technologies haven't
got a SINGLE chance in heck of ever coping with serious volumes
and STILL remain cost-effective. And that has been made
painfully clear to me beyond any doubt: nowadays that I have to
cope again with seriously large data volumes instead of the total
JOKE of Java "apps" I've had to deal with for the last 4 years.

See above. You, I, we are too expensive. We expect our salaries to rise.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Noons]

Serge Rielau apparently said,on my timestamp of 29/07/2005 8:52 PM:

Funny, I thought assembly language to rules supreme.
That too, but I'm not a masochist... Done my time with
360 and 370 Assembler thank you very much: I leave that
for the zOS DB2 programmers. ;)

Folks are debating DBA skills in these forums. Ever tried to get C/C++
skills? It's a b**** to get a good C programmer nowadays.
Actually, they are pretty easy to find in Australia. And cheap, too.
Same goes for VB and C# programmers, BTW. Nowadays it's harder to
find a J2EE guy than anything else, as a matter of fact.
Certainty the kids who wrote C when they were 16 and hit the job with 10
years experience don't exist anymore.
Yeah but they were never any good. I'm talking about professional
programmers. Not script kiddies writing TSRs for fun.
Point being, you wouldn't go back to micro-coding, you wouldn't go back
to assembly. Too expensive in labour, too unwieldy.
C/C++ is already turning into a niche skill.
Begging your pardon, that's the biggest pile of marketing dung
out there. I understand it's not sourced from you. But it's
totally untrue.

Which language do you reckon the ENTIRE edifice of GNU and open
source software is built on? And Linux? And Apache? And most of
the opensource appservers? And just about every other piece of
commercial software for the PC environment? Adobe software,
for example? Symantec? The entire edifice of Windoze/SS/Microsoft
Office software? DotNot itself?

Java/J2EE??? Pah!! Freakin' NO WAY in the darn world!!!

Do you think there is ONE LINE of Java in ANY search engine
out there? It's ALL C and C++, Apache, opensource OS and s/w and
script languages, Serge. I'm in the thick of it now, I know what I
see. 3/4 of all that crap you hear about Java/J2EE and internet
technology is TOTALLY and UTTERLY false: a complete hoax!

Don't believe the marketing BULL that Java has taken over the world:
it's the biggest hoax I've ever seen! DotNot and c# alone have
MORE developers than ALL the Java dungheap!
The abstraction layer just keeps on rising because Moore's law and
inflation favours throwing Hz and bytes at any problem over brain.
You can't throw Hz at a J2EE app and expect it to run well.
Believe me, I've seen that approach daily. For 4 looong years.
It never worked, not even ONCE!!!
I've seen piddly apps with less than 200 tables in them
throw a big iron server (name with-held but it has 3 letters)
completely out the window. The darn thing is so moronically
inefficient it doesn't matter how much hardware you throw at it,
it just WON'T work with any SIGNIFICANTLY large app.
See above. You, I, we are too expensive. We expect our salaries to rise.

Nope. Wrong again. Middle age experienced techos are
a dime a dozen and dirt cheap compared to snotty kids who
expect to be on the way to the 5th million by age 28.

Besides, the middle age mob IS experienced, has had ALL
the training they need and has a work ethic that no
modern snotty kid can match. And it can learn c# dirt easy.
We are dirt cheap nowadays, Serge. We don't need expensive
training, we can read a book and make sense of it, we're past
the age of raising babies or taking long weekends on the booze.

The Java mob doesn't stand a hope in hell against that:
their learning curve for anything is ten times as high
and expensive. Don't believe the marketing crap you hear.
It's all rubbish peddled by IDE and snake-oil vendors.

DotNot beats the sweet bejesus off J2EE, any time you might
care to compare them with anything slightly more complex than a
moronic shopping cart. And there is very little Java in it,
if any.

Which do you reckon is gonna win, something that takes 2 days
and a mouse to learn, or something that requires 4000 pages
of just the basic user guide?

I was told many times over the last 4 years that without Java
I couldn't find a job anywhere. Complete hoax. Once I got
terminally pissed-off with the pile of rubbish I was being fed
at an IBM VAR and started looking, took me two months to find
one. Can't complain. And no, I didn't take a pay cut.
Quite the opposite. Then again, I never charged the silly
small fortunes of the y2k era...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Noons]

John Bailo apparently said,on my timestamp of 29/07/2005 2:00 AM:

IBM created the World's Chess Champion.

If they want to make DB2 the world's database champion, they will do
so...with ease.

Typical fanfare logic...

[Buck Nuggets]

> What would you call http://www.enterprisedb.com? Sure, they haven't

reached "commercial release" status now but they definitely look like
a commercial vendor to me!

A number of companies are packaging postgresql, Netezza is one that has
a 'data warehouse appliance'. But I haven't yet seen any of them
really spend any cash to publicize postgresql, rather than their own
product. Maybe that will start changing?

I hope so - postgresql is the best open source database out there. And
good enough that I think db2, oracle, and informix are in deep trouble
in 5-10 years.

[Mark A]

"Paul" <pa**@see.my.sig.com> wrote in message
news:id********************************@4ax.com...

You can hardly steal that which you have purchased.

Maybe you meant "integrated as much Peoplesoft technology to include
on Oracle Apps as they possibly can"?

Paul...

You are correct. Same with DB2 and Informix.

[Noons]

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.

[IANAL_VISTA]

Noons <wi*******@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:42**********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

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...sulttype=&vers
ion=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.

Please don't hide your feelings.
Please share how you really feel about TPC results.

[Buck Nuggets]

Noons says with authority:

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

really? should I immediately look for a mainframe to rehost some of my
db2 udb databases running on aix. Like:

- adhoc database with 500 gbytes of data and 30 users that typically
gives 5 second response on 332 mhz 4-way smp.

- dashboard database with 100 gbytes of data that runs 60,000 queries
every day - on another 332 mhz 4-way smp.

These used servers and their out of the box db2 workgroup license cost
almost nothing, and just run. I suppose I could through millions of
dollars of hardware at this problem, but everyone seems pretty happy
with this solution so far.

Someday you'll say something for certain that's actually correct. I
mean, if a million monkeys could eventually type up the complete works
of shakespear, anything can happen given enough time.

[Noons]

Buck Nuggets apparently said,on my timestamp of 30/07/2005 12:59 AM:

really? should I immediately look for a mainframe to rehost some of my
db2 udb databases running on aix. Like:
Like I said: it takes a mainframe to run db2.
udb can be run on a shitload of other stuff.
You don't listen when I yell "slow down", do you?
These used servers and their out of the box db2 workgroup license cost
almost nothing, and just run.
One day I'll show you how much our servers cost, software included...
I suppose I could through millions of
dollars of hardware at this problem, but everyone seems pretty happy
with this solution so far.
I suppose you could. But then again if peeing in dark pants
gives you a warm feeling, who am I to bother noticing?

Someday you'll say something for certain that's actually correct.
Someday. Meanwhile, I don't have to listen to you.
I
mean, if a million monkeys could eventually type up the complete works
of shakespear,
prove it, don't just say it. Want me to send you pens?
I've got some el-cheapo ones, from the previous job at
the IBM var.
anything can happen given enough time.

Yes. Even db2 becoming the same as udb.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[DA Morgan]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

DA Morgan wrote:

In Oracle back-up takes two mouse clicks ... how complex is that?
Better take a look at 9i and 10g RMAN and the easy setup using OEM and
the Grid Control. I think your experience with Oracle is dated.

Yep, it's a year old. Last year I was supporting a mission-critical
300 gbyte oracle 9i database running over 100,000 transactions a day.

Personally, I'd like to be prepared for something besides a 'best-case
recovery scenario'. Two mouse-clicks? Please, save that for kids in
database 101 who don't know any better.

buck

300GB is very small and your comment about "2 mouse clicks" clearly
indicates that you have either little serious experience with Oracle
or have little serious experience with any recent version of the
product.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

Redwood Shores? I am talking about Oracle sales reps and what they pitching
to companies looking for an HR package.

They are irrelevant and you know that.

Corporate strategy and product decisions are not made by AE's.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

DA Morgan wrote:

Software is a tool ... not a religion. I'd suggest some a scotch
and some perspective if you can truly equate the two in your
mind.

lol, well if your hundreds of trolls and flames on
comp.databases.ibm-db2 aren't due to dogma, then what's your excuse?
shilling? some deep-seated insecurity? seriously, why do you spend
all of your time this way?

I teach at a university.
I have opinions.
I express them.
Much as I enjoy a good single malt so I drink them.
But I don't suggest someone is engaging in theological blasphemy if they
prefere Macallan to Glenfidich.

I think you folks take your brand loyalty just a little to seriously.
Must make the stockholders of IBM happy but I fail to see what it does
for you and intellectual integrity. Apparently since I stopped working
on DB2 there is a loyalty oath that must be signed that contains the
phrase "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil except with respect
to the other guy." Get over it.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Noons wrote:

Buck Nuggets wrote:

you could at least make your trolling a little less obvious:

I didn't start it, nuggets-boy. But I'll end it if I want to
and when I want to. Not because you belched. Clear enough?

- stating that you actually like db2 and then complaining about ibm's
marketing is bizarre.

No. You're just not intelligent enough to understand it.

Isn't there some other group you could go spend time at for a while?

Yes. It's called comp.databases.oracle.server. Where I am now.
It's you effing deranged lot that keep coming here with these
piss poor and infantile attempts at ad-hominem attacks.
You don't see me starting threads in db2 groups, do you nuggy-boy?
So, piss off you and your veiled threats before I clip you across
the ears.

Perhaps go to some islamic/hindi/budhist group and tell them that their
god is irrelevant because you found more 10x as many books on
christianity as their religion?

I don't start threads outside of c.d.o.s., moron.
You got the wrong person.

And I didn't start this either. I was in Hawaii, laying on a beach, and
drinking scotch. You folks did this in my absence in all three groups.
Take some responsibility for your own actions.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Mark A]

"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.

I have no doubt that Oracle will try to incorporate technology, etc from
PeopleSoft into their own products, and the then kill the Peoplesoft
products. Same goes for IBM with Informix.

[Sybrand Bakker]

On 29 Jul 2005 06:19:00 -0700, "Buck Nuggets" <bu*********@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I hope so - postgresql is the best open source database out there. And
good enough that I think db2, oracle, and informix are in deep trouble
in 5-10 years

Please dream on. Informix has been bought by IBM and will disappear
soon. DB2 will never get any substantial marketshare on any non-IBM
platform.
Oracle will always have more R & D funding at their disposal, and will
be capable to have postgresql stay where it is now: in the toy
department.
--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

[Buck Nuggets]

> Oracle will always have more R & D funding at their disposal, and will

be capable to have postgresql stay where it is now: in the toy
department.

And there's no way that a free web server like Apache or a free browser
like Firefox will ever compete against Microsoft's R&D. Or free
languages like PHP, Python, and Ruby will ever compete against Sun's
R&D. Unfortunately, the mythical man month prevents you from getting a
linear productivity improvement from a linear increase in staff. So,
Oracle might have a thousand people doing R&D - but probably only a
dozen can work productively on the engine. What are the rest doing?
Building XML extenders? Integrating purchased ETL software?
Integrating java? Big deal.

Face it - in spite of a wide collection of defects and limitations,
mysql is picking a ton of steam. The fact that it easily corrupts data
(allows invalid dates, truncates strings & numbers without warnings),
has terrible performance for most application, etc - none of this
matters. Many people don't know, don't care, and just buy it. And
Oracle has lost their revenue. To a *toy* database. Even worse for
Oracle - Mysql won't be a toy forever and postgresql isn't a toy now.

Postgresql right now is sufficiently mature for use in fortune 100s.
However, since it can't handle the most demanding tasks, these
companies typically require multiple products - like Postgresql plus
DB2/Oracle/Informix/Sybase/etc. And since the cost of maintaining two
separate skillsets generally exceeds the licensing savings, it's
usually (in my opinion) worth it for large companies to forego the
occasional license savings and stick to a consistent commercial product
line. Today.

But small companies, with small data requirements? They're generally
fine on postgresql right now..

And with every passing year - between Moore's Law, and the rapid
evolution of these products we're going to see them absorb the smallest
databases - until the only databases still using large commercial
products will be the rare monsters.

I suspect that this is one of the reasons that Oracle desperately needs
to become an applications company.

[Matt Emmerton]

"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3k*************@individual.net...

Noons wrote:

Sure. But there is still a very clear limit: going back to
the volumes bit I mentioned above. Those of us who still have
to process serious amounts of data in as little time as possible
are still using good old C/C++, shell scripts, perl here and there
and maybe in a moment of light-headed enthusiasm, python/php. (Now,
THOSE are interesting languages!) Funny, I thought assembly language to rules supreme.
Layers of abstraction:
microcoding,
assembly,
C/C++
Java
...

Folks are debating DBA skills in these forums. Ever tried to get C/C++
skills? It's a b**** to get a good C programmer nowadays.
Certainty the kids who wrote C when they were 16 and hit the job with 10
years experience don't exist anymore.

Well, I fit that description -- I guess that's why IBM hired me!
Point being, you wouldn't go back to micro-coding, you wouldn't go back
to assembly. Too expensive in labour, too unwieldy.
C/C++ is already turning into a niche skill.
The abstraction layer just keeps on rising because Moore's law and
inflation favours throwing Hz and bytes at any problem over brain.

It's also a management issue. Managing 10Mloc of C code is tedious. But a
set of 1000 Java "objects" is somewhat easier, at least from a conceptual
level. This is the force that is driving Java app servers with JSP/servlet
technology in the industry today, and is the reason why WebSphere and the
Apache group's products (Jakarta, Tomcat, etc) and countable others exist.
XML fits in here in a simliar vein but is being driven into the DBMS
products directly instead of being handled by a separate product that
separates the presentation from the data.

--
Matt Emmerton

[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*******@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.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.washington.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.washington.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_results.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.