RE: Informix beats Oracle

>From: "David Buchholz" <David.Buchholz@tsysacquiring.com> > > This group's Oracle knowledge is current to version 8i. <g> > >Yeah, Daniel, and your Informix knowledge seems current to version 5.1. > >Big <g> > >The only difference is that we don't troll the Oracle newsgroups. > >-Dave Well actually no. My experience is with Oracle 9. Oh yeah, they really have things worked out when it comes to geospatial. QuadTree indexes were a big joke, but in Oracle 9, there was a nasty bug that caused R-Tree indexes to be too slow. (Yeah there was a delay introduced to slow down some of the processing so that it could synch properly.) Supposedly fixed in Oracle 10 or 11. There's some quirks in the cx_Oracle python module, but that's not really Oracle's fault. I'd bitch about Informix's python module, and their RoR adapter but IBM *HASN'T* released their open beta relase on the RoR yet! Yet I digress. Sorry Danny boy, but for a troll, you've kind of worn out your welcome. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! http://mobile.msn.com

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > >> From: "David Buchholz" <David.Buchholz@tsysacquiring.com> > >> > This group's Oracle knowledge is current to version 8i. <g> >> >> Yeah, Daniel, and your Informix knowledge seems current to version 5.1. >> >> Big <g> >> >> The only difference is that we don't troll the Oracle newsgroups. >> >> -Dave > > Well actually no. > > My experience is with Oracle 9. Released 6 years ago in 2001 and currently desupported. That's keeping current? -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: >> My experience is with Oracle 9. > > Released 6 years ago in 2001 and currently desupported. That's keeping > current? Desupported already?! I thought it was about to reach end of support (with 11 comming up)... Plea$e $upgrade$... keep Gartner happy! :> By the way... You may clarify me a doubt... (I really should ask this in an Oracle newsgroup...): My fellow Oracle DBA tells me something about PL/SQL need to have explicitly grants (user/table) while simple SQL doesn't... I know I'm not making much sense, but in his words: "It's a different engine... SQL and PL/SQL" If I recall correctly if you create a procedure with a user that has the necessarily privileges over the tables, a third user cannot execute the procedure if he doesn't have the underlying table privileges... Does it ring a bell? I'll try to clarify this with him... -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...

Wow. Daniel seems to want to change the issue. Daniel, my client is using 9. When they go to either 10 or 11, then I'll go to 10 or 11. I'm a consultant and when I pick or choose a client, I'm forced to work within their limited constraints. Just because I believe that IDS is the best designed and efficient database on the market doesn't mean its the only database that I support. As you can see here, there are many Informix shops on different versions of IDS which stretch back a couple of years. Not everyone jumps on the latest for many reasons. You'd grok that if you actually did anything real, instead of pretended to be an educator. >From: Fernando Nunes <spam@domus.online.pt> >DA Morgan wrote: > > >> My experience is with Oracle 9. > > > > Released 6 years ago in 2001 and currently desupported. That's keeping > > current? > >Desupported already?! I thought it was about to reach end of support (with >11 >comming up)... Plea$e $upgrade$... keep Gartner happy! :> > >By the way... You may clarify me a doubt... (I really should ask this in an >Oracle newsgroup...): > >My fellow Oracle DBA tells me something about PL/SQL need to have >explicitly >grants (user/table) while simple SQL doesn't... I know I'm not making much >sense, but in his words: "It's a different engine... SQL and PL/SQL" >If I recall correctly if you create a procedure with a user that has the >necessarily privileges over the tables, a third user cannot execute the >procedure if he doesn't have the underlying table privileges... Does it >ring a >bell? I'll try to clarify this with him... > >-- >Fernando Nunes >Portugal > >http://informix-technology.blogspot.com >My email works... but I don't check it frequently... >_______________________________________________ >Informix-list mailing list >Informix-list@iiug.org >http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail'award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507

Fernando Nunes wrote: > My fellow Oracle DBA tells me something about PL/SQL need to have > explicitly grants (user/table) while simple SQL doesn't... I know I'm > not making much sense, but in his words: "It's a different engine... SQL > and PL/SQL" > If I recall correctly if you create a procedure with a user that has the > necessarily privileges over the tables, a third user cannot execute the > procedure if he doesn't have the underlying table privileges... Does it > ring a bell? I'll try to clarify this with him... Fernando I think you are confusing two issues here. In Oracle dynamic SQL run by a user can use role-membership to execute. Any DDL objects (like e.g. views) cannot rely on a permission based on a role. The definer requires explicit permission to the used objects. Given that roles are managed in the database this is indeed interesting. The fact that routines run under "definer"s rights by default is part of encapsulation. One common usage of routines is to avoid having to give users access to base objects. To the best of my knowledge this is SQL standard. There should (and I believe is) a means to use "invoker"s rights which basically turns a routine into a macro. Anyway there are countless differences between Oracle SQL and PL/SQL in packages (and they drive me nuts on a daily basis). e.g: routine overloading and defaulting is only supported within packages. VARCHAR2 has different limits inside and outside of PL/SQL (32k vs. 4000), You can declare subtypes (like distinct types) in PL/SQL, but not outside. In fact there are many objects that can only be used within a package and/or routine. Since PL/SQL typically contain SQL (such as expressions) inside of it it's pretty confusing what can and cannot be done at any given time. One of the things I have learned over the years is to treat PL/SQL and SQL completely separate. I believe this may be one reason why Oracle users perceive the lack of package support in other products as such a big minus. It concentrates a lot of the capabilities. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab