Re: No future for DB2

Madison Pruet wrote: > > Noons --- IBM Informix Enterprise Replication supports this functionality > with about 1/3 the overhead of the original transaction. Madison: I've long ago stopped believing in fairies, godmothers and other garden variety gnomes. Spare me the "mine is longer than yours", I don't give a rat's arse what Informix does, under or not IBM. Tah?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1123030443.824904.296030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Madison Pruet wrote: > > > > > Noons --- IBM Informix Enterprise Replication supports this functionality > > with about 1/3 the overhead of the original transaction. > > Madison: > I've long ago stopped believing in fairies, godmothers > and other garden variety gnomes. > Spare me the "mine is longer than yours", I don't give > a rat's arse what Informix does, under or not IBM. > Tah? > Then why are you posting in comp.databases.informix? You stated - "If I understand your question correctly, that is not possible with ANY replication in any database version." That is simply not true. Now it may be true with the database that you are using, but it is not true with IDS ER. There are replication solutions which do support these functionalities, and yes - Informix ER does support them with about 1/3 of the overhead of the original transaction. I'm not playing any "mine is longer than yours" game. I'm simply pointing out an incorrect statement which you made.

On 2 Aug 2005 17:54:03 -0700, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >Madison Pruet wrote: > >> >> Noons --- IBM Informix Enterprise Replication supports this functionality >> with about 1/3 the overhead of the original transaction. > >Madison: >I've long ago stopped believing in fairies, godmothers >and other garden variety gnomes. >Spare me the "mine is longer than yours", I don't give >a rat's arse what Informix does, under or not IBM. >Tah? Ah, intellectual honesty . . . at last he 'fesses up. I use ER under 9.4; it works quite well. Relatively low overhead . . . . and I'm looking forward to 10.00. If you don't want to keep Informix in the conversation, then please drop comp.databases.informix from your post list. Give a hoot, don't pollute. JWC

Madison Pruet wrote: > "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > news:1123030443.824904.296030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>Madison Pruet wrote: >> >> >>>Noons --- IBM Informix Enterprise Replication supports this > > functionality > >>>with about 1/3 the overhead of the original transaction. >> >>Madison: >>I've long ago stopped believing in fairies, godmothers >>and other garden variety gnomes. >>Spare me the "mine is longer than yours", I don't give >>a rat's arse what Informix does, under or not IBM. >>Tah? >> > > > Then why are you posting in comp.databases.informix? He likely didn't. This thread is in 3 separate groups. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

> > > > Then why are you posting in comp.databases.informix? > > He likely didn't. This thread is in 3 separate groups. > -- > Daniel A. Morgan > http://www.psoug.org > damorgan@x.washington.edu > (replace x with u to respond) Maybe so. But by posting as he did, all he did was to point out shortcomings of some database systems. But these are weaknesses that Informix Enterprise Replication does not have. He made bogus statements he should have done his homework before exposing trying to point out the weaknesses of any system, because if you aren't really careful, it will backfire.

Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2005 2:53 PM: > Maybe so. But by posting as he did, all he did was to point out > shortcomings of some database systems. But these are weaknesses that > Informix Enterprise Replication does not have. He made bogus statements he > should have done his homework before exposing trying to point out the > weaknesses of any system, because if you aren't really careful, it will > backfire. No dickhead. I did not post to "point out the shortcomings" of ANYTHING. I posted a *comment* on Oracle for a *post* on Oracle. YOU are the one that butted in with the usual "size" CRAP. And you didn't even read the reply. Go back and follow the thread, if you are intelligent enough to figure how to do so. You lot haven't figured out yet the ONLY people interested in anything to do with Informix are the half dozen of you staring at each other's belly button? About time you woke up! I'm fully convinced that dead-end product is "going to take over the world by storm", next week. Now go suck a lemon: it won't hurt you and at least will keep your hands quiet for a while. -- Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

John Carlson apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2005 11:25 AM: > > I use ER under 9.4; it works quite well. Relatively low overhead . . > . . and I'm looking forward to 10.00. That's great. Someone please give the man the blue plastic bucket. > If you don't want to keep Informix in the conversation, then please > drop comp.databases.informix from your post list. Give a hoot, don't > pollute. As soon as everyone else, including you, does the same to all the other cross replies. Who the heck do you think you are to tell me how and where to post? Get lost. -- Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Noons wrote: > Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2005 2:53 PM: > >> Maybe so. But by posting as he did, all he did was to point out >> shortcomings of some database systems. But these are weaknesses that >> Informix Enterprise Replication does not have. He made bogus >> statements he >> should have done his homework before exposing trying to point out the >> weaknesses of any system, because if you aren't really careful, it will >> backfire. > > > No *bleep*. I did not post to "point out the shortcomings" > of ANYTHING. I posted a *comment* on Oracle for a *post* on Oracle. > > YOU are the one that butted in with the usual "size" *bleep*. > > And you didn't even read the reply. Go back and follow the > thread, if you are intelligent enough to figure how to do so. > > You lot haven't figured out yet the ONLY people interested in > anything to do with Informix are the half dozen of you staring > at each other's belly button? About time you woke up! > > I'm fully convinced that dead-end product is "going to take over > the world by storm", next week. > > Now go *bleep*: it won't hurt you and at least will > keep your hands quiet for a while. > And I always thought Australians are so friendly ... ;-) May I try to mediate? Noons wrote "any database version" He apparently was operating on the context set by the thread earlier debating on where replication (and which kind) is free in Oracle. Madison came from a different, equally valid context. What do we learn from this: "Always fully qualify your identifiers!" :-) What's a good rule for SQL with joins is just as ood a rule for x-posted usenet posts. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2005 9:52 PM: >> > And I always thought Australians are so friendly ... ;-) Thanks for the bleeps. I needed that. :) > May I try to mediate? > Noons wrote "any database version" He apparently was operating on the > context set by the thread earlier debating on where replication (and > which kind) is free in Oracle. Nope. I wrote: <quote>He's correct in that he's mistaken. Snapshot replication (basic replication) *is* available in Standard Edition, 9i. Advanced replication (master2master) is only in EE. 10g might have changed that, but that will be another reason for people not to upgrade...</quote> and MP butted in with some stuff about how Oracle did this or that in comparison to some other enterprise whatever product I couldn't care less about. Only to split hairs with the reply, not even checking it and accusing me of claiming God only knows what as an attack on his pet product. The intention was clear. The reply as well: *bleep* > > What's a good rule for SQL with joins is just as ood a rule for x-posted > usenet posts. Yup. It would also help if people did not forget to breath in, smile twice and think three times before hitting the send. And I count myself on all those groups: never claimed to be perfect. What can I say: two crashes in one afternoon because of a moronic bug that should have been fixed eons ago and my nerves are a little on the edge. All's well now, thank Codd. -- Cheers Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42f096a7$0$11925$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2005 2:53 PM: > > > Maybe so. But by posting as he did, all he did was to point out > > shortcomings of some database systems. But these are weaknesses that > > Informix Enterprise Replication does not have. He made bogus statements he > > should have done his homework before exposing trying to point out the > > weaknesses of any system, because if you aren't really careful, it will > > backfire. > > No dickhead. I did not post to "point out the shortcomings" > of ANYTHING. I posted a *comment* on Oracle for a *post* on Oracle. > Noons.. Again I quote from your posting... "If I understand your question correctly, that is not possible with ANY replication in any database version." You did NOT state "that is not possible with ANY replication in any ORACLE database version." -- and you posted in comp.databases.ibm-db2, comp.databases.informix, comp.databases.oracle.server. If you do not want to post in comp.databases.informix, then all you have to do is to remove comp.databases.informix from the newsgroup entry before you post. If the Oracle server does not have the ability to replicate the significant events of the table, or groups of tables without significant overhead, then so be it. That is not my problem. But by stating any database version, you opened the comparision to all systems - DB2, Sybase, Informix, mySQL, msSQL, postgress, etc. You made the mistake of not providing a filter in you where clause. You should have been thinking more along the lines of select replication_characteristics from replication_systems where compay = "Oracle" and not select replication_characteristics from replication_systems. And now all you seem to be able to do is to throw insults at me.

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42f0bf29$0$11950$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > Nope. I wrote: > <quote>He's correct in that he's mistaken. Snapshot replication > (basic replication) *is* available in Standard Edition, 9i. > Advanced replication (master2master) is only in EE. > 10g might have changed that, but that will be another > reason for people not to upgrade...</quote> > > and MP butted in with some stuff about how Oracle did this > or that in comparison to some other enterprise whatever > product I couldn't care less about. No Noons, I responded with why I didn't consider snapshop replication of any kind to be replication. A copy maybe, but not replication. I never tried to compare anything. And I quote from my prior postiong... "Does Oracle snapshot replication 1) replicate all of the trigger activity performed on the original table 2) distinguish between updates on a row and inserts/deletes on the same row? (If not, then cascade deletes are not properly performed) 3) properly handle cascading updates This is why I generally don't consider snapshot copies as being replication. They generally only replicate the data, and not the engine logic associated with the base table." And you responded with your quote of "If I understand your question correctly, that is not possible with ANY replication in any database version." I simply stated why I don't consider snapshot replication to be replication. Point in time copy, maybe. But not replication. Oh, I guess we could argue that it is a form of replication, assuming that the source data is static. But otherwise, the replica is only a replica until the next update of the source table. After that, it is a stale copy.

Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2005 11:13 PM: > > > Noons.. Again I quote from your posting... > "If I understand your question correctly, that is not possible > with ANY replication in any database version." that is NOT what I posted initially and which prompted your intervention. I wrote: <quote>He's correct in that he's mistaken. Snapshot replication (basic replication) *is* available in Standard Edition, 9i. Advanced replication (master2master) is only in EE. 10g might have changed that, but that will be another reason for people not to upgrade...</quote> YOU jumped in with your views on replication. Which BTW match no one else's and no one cares what YOU consider snapshot replication to be or not. And if you care to read the above CAREFULLY, you'll realize that I said "any database version" in the context of an Oracle database reply. I don't give a rat's arse what ANY other database does and I was replying to an Oracle question. > comp.databases.informix, comp.databases.oracle.server. If you do not want > to post in comp.databases.informix, then all you have to do is to remove > comp.databases.informix from the newsgroup entry before you post. If you have SUCH A BIG problem with cross-posting, HOW COME it's only now you're piping about it? Hmmmm? FYI: I'll post wherever and whenever I want and NOTHING you say will stop that. Get used to it and drop the "educational" bits, I don't give a hoot what you think about x-posting. Get over it. > so be it. That is not my problem. But by stating any database version, you > opened the comparision to all systems - No I most definitely did not. If you had followed the thread and the context, you'd have understood that. You were just dying to jump in with the pretend feature of your pet product. > And now all you seem to be able to do is to throw insults at me. I'll throw whatever I want, whenever I want. Now grow up or get lost, you and your "I'm so offended" CRAP. Capice? -- Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42f0d327$0$11937$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2005 11:13 PM: > > > > > > Noons.. Again I quote from your posting... > > "If I understand your question correctly, that is not possible > > with ANY replication in any database version." > > > comp.databases.informix, comp.databases.oracle.server. If you do not want > > to post in comp.databases.informix, then all you have to do is to remove > > comp.databases.informix from the newsgroup entry before you post. > > If you have SUCH A BIG problem with cross-posting, HOW COME > it's only now you're piping about it? Hmmmm? Because you stated "that is not possible with ANY replication in any database version." in comp.databases.informix, which is simply not true. In fact, from what I understand, Oracle streams supports this functionality as well. And from your other comment.... "I'll throw whatever I want, whenever I want. Now grow up or get lost, you and your "I'm so offended" CRAP. Capice?" Well - so far I haven't had to resorted to insults, obscene statements, zingers, or any other form of putdown. I've simply been stating facts. Some of your comments, however, well - they really belong in the locker-room.

Madison, I think your understanding of Oracle materialized views does not include all of its features available. Madison Pruet wrote: > No Noons, I responded with why I didn't consider snapshop replication of > any kind to be replication. A copy maybe, but not replication. I never > tried to compare anything. > > And I quote from my prior postiong... > > "Does Oracle snapshot replication > > 1) replicate all of the trigger activity performed on the original table Yes. It does. You can create MV Log on a source table. It will write down all of table data modifications into MV log table. Further these modifications can be propagated to a target MV in "fast refresh" mode. > 2) distinguish between updates on a row and inserts/deletes on the same row? > (If not, then cascade deletes are not properly performed) Yes, see above. All is registered in a time based sequence. > 3) properly handle cascading updates Yes. You can combine several MVs into a MV Group. The refreshes will be done with transactional consistency. > > This is why I generally don't consider snapshot copies as being replication. > They generally only replicate the data, and not the engine logic associated > with the base table." No, it is not so simplistic. You can refer to Oracle9i Advanced Replication Release 2 (9.2)http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96567/toc.htm

"Mark Malakanov" <markmal@rogers.com> wrote in message news:k82dnWXI7ptGYG3fRVn-gQ@rogers.com... > Madison, I think your understanding of Oracle materialized views does > not include all of its features available. > > Madison Pruet wrote: > > > No Noons, I responded with why I didn't consider snapshop replication of > > any kind to be replication. A copy maybe, but not replication. I never > > tried to compare anything. > > > > And I quote from my prior postiong... > > > > "Does Oracle snapshot replication > > > > 1) replicate all of the trigger activity performed on the original table > > Yes. It does. You can create MV Log on a source table. It will write > down all of table data modifications into MV log table. Further these > modifications can be propagated to a target MV in "fast refresh" mode. > > > 2) distinguish between updates on a row and inserts/deletes on the same row? > > (If not, then cascade deletes are not properly performed) > Yes, see above. All is registered in a time based sequence. > > > 3) properly handle cascading updates > > Yes. You can combine several MVs into a MV Group. The refreshes will be > done with transactional consistency. > > > > > This is why I generally don't consider snapshot copies as being replication. > > They generally only replicate the data, and not the engine logic associated > > with the base table." > > No, it is not so simplistic. > You can refer to Oracle9i Advanced Replication Release 2 > (9.2)http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96567/toc .htm

Thanks Mark. That was the reason that I asked the question in the first place. Unfortunatly, it now appears that Noons is not as knowledgable about the Oracle Database as he led us to believe since he totally disagreed with your responses and said that no database version supported any of this. Thanks for the correct response. "Mark Malakanov" <markmal@rogers.com> wrote in message news:k82dnWXI7ptGYG3fRVn-gQ@rogers.com... > Madison, I think your understanding of Oracle materialized views does > not include all of its features available. > > Madison Pruet wrote: > > > No Noons, I responded with why I didn't consider snapshop replication of > > any kind to be replication. A copy maybe, but not replication. I never > > tried to compare anything. > > > > And I quote from my prior postiong... > > > > "Does Oracle snapshot replication > > > > 1) replicate all of the trigger activity performed on the original table > > Yes. It does. You can create MV Log on a source table. It will write > down all of table data modifications into MV log table. Further these > modifications can be propagated to a target MV in "fast refresh" mode. > > > 2) distinguish between updates on a row and inserts/deletes on the same row? > > (If not, then cascade deletes are not properly performed) > Yes, see above. All is registered in a time based sequence. > > > 3) properly handle cascading updates > > Yes. You can combine several MVs into a MV Group. The refreshes will be > done with transactional consistency. > > > > > This is why I generally don't consider snapshot copies as being replication. > > They generally only replicate the data, and not the engine logic associated > > with the base table." > > No, it is not so simplistic. > You can refer to Oracle9i Advanced Replication Release 2 > (9.2)http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96567/toc .htm

Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2005 3:43 AM: > Thanks Mark. That was the reason that I asked the question in the first > place. > > Unfortunatly, it now appears that Noons is not as knowledgable about the > Oracle Database as he led us to believe since he totally disagreed with your > responses and said that no database version supported any of this. > > Thanks for the correct response. Oh, GAGF you piss poor idiot. Oldest effing trick in the book. And stop top posting. > > "Mark Malakanov" <markmal@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:k82dnWXI7ptGYG3fRVn-gQ@rogers.com... > >>Madison, I think your understanding of Oracle materialized views does >>not include all of its features available. >> >>Madison Pruet wrote: >> >> >>>No Noons, I responded with why I didn't consider snapshop replication > > of > >>>any kind to be replication. A copy maybe, but not replication. I never >>>tried to compare anything. >>> >>>And I quote from my prior postiong... >>> >>>"Does Oracle snapshot replication >>> >>>1) replicate all of the trigger activity performed on the original table >> >>Yes. It does. You can create MV Log on a source table. It will write >>down all of table data modifications into MV log table. Further these >>modifications can be propagated to a target MV in "fast refresh" mode. Including modifications to OTHER tables generated by triggers on the original? THAT is what he asked. Please explain where in the MVLOG is that kept? >> >> >>>2) distinguish between updates on a row and inserts/deletes on the same > > row? > >>> (If not, then cascade deletes are not properly performed) >> >>Yes, see above. All is registered in a time based sequence. Please explain which part of the mvlog records changes to OTHER tables? >> >> >>>3) properly handle cascading updates >> >>Yes. You can combine several MVs into a MV Group. The refreshes will be >>done with transactional consistency. >> >> >>>This is why I generally don't consider snapshot copies as being > > replication. > >>>They generally only replicate the data, and not the engine logic > > associated > >>>with the base table." >> >>No, it is not so simplistic. >>You can refer to Oracle9i Advanced Replication Release 2 >> That COULD be a good idea. IF he could read...

Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2005 1:00 AM: >> >>If you have SUCH A BIG problem with cross-posting, HOW COME >>it's only now you're piping about it? Hmmmm? > > > Because you stated "that is not possible with ANY replication in any > database version." in comp.databases.informix, which is simply not true. That is absolute BULLSHIT. I asked: why did you not complain about x-posting before! Nothing to do with replication. Not even remotely related. If you want to take the "holier than thou" approach, at least be minimally consistent. And shove it. > > In fact, from what I understand, Oracle streams supports this functionality > as well. Really? Exactly WHICH functionality is "this" again? And you READ manuals now? > Well - so far I haven't had to resorted to insults, obscene statements, > zingers, or any other form of putdown. I've simply been stating facts. I couldn't care less what you "resort" to. > Some of your comments, however, well - they really belong in the > locker-room. Good. Go see if I'm there. -- Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42f11517$0$11922$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2005 3:43 AM: > > Thanks Mark. That was the reason that I asked the question in the first > > place. > > > > Unfortunatly, it now appears that Noons is not as knowledgable about the > > Oracle Database as he led us to believe since he totally disagreed with your > > responses and said that no database version supported any of this. > > > > Thanks for the correct response. > > Oh, GAGF you piss poor idiot. Oldest effing trick in the book. > And stop top posting. Why? Who appointed you the king of news groups? I posted on top because it was a general comment and note of thanks to Mark for being factual. > > > > > >> > >>No, it is not so simplistic. > >>You can refer to Oracle9i Advanced Replication Release 2 > >> > > That COULD be a good idea. IF he could read... Noons - based on the misinformation that you've been giving out about Oracle DB, I'd suggest you reading it a bit as well. I admit that I don't know Oracle that well. That's why I asked the question in the first place. On the other hand, it appears that you have been giving out misinformation while pretending to be the Oracle expert.

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42f11672$0$11922$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2005 1:00 AM: > > >> > >>If you have SUCH A BIG problem with cross-posting, HOW COME > >>it's only now you're piping about it? Hmmmm? > > > > > > Because you stated "that is not possible with ANY replication in any > > database version." in comp.databases.informix, which is simply not true. > > That is absolute BULLSHIT. I asked: why did you not complain > about x-posting before! Nothing to do with replication. > Not even remotely related. If you want to take the > "holier than thou" approach, at least be minimally consistent. > And shove it. > > > > > In fact, from what I understand, Oracle streams supports this functionality > > as well. > > Really? Exactly WHICH functionality is "this" again? > And you READ manuals now? > > > > Well - so far I haven't had to resorted to insults, obscene statements, > > zingers, or any other form of putdown. I've simply been stating facts. > > I couldn't care less what you "resort" to. > > > Some of your comments, however, well - they really belong in the > > locker-room. > > Good. Go see if I'm there. > > > -- > Nuno Souto > in sunny Sydney, Australia > wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2005 5:11 AM: > > Noons - based on the misinformation that you've been giving out about Oracle > DB, I'd suggest you reading it a bit as well. I admit that I don't know > Oracle that well. That's why I asked the question in the first place. On > the other hand, it appears that you have been giving out misinformation > while pretending to be the Oracle expert. I never "pretended to be an Oracle expert", dickhead. Once again, you're letting your imagination run rampant. Try sticking to facts. WHICH part was the misinformation? -- Cheers Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2005 5:15 AM: > "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > news:42f11672$0$11922$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > >>Madison Pruet apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2005 1:00 AM: >> >> >>>>If you have SUCH A BIG problem with cross-posting, HOW COME >>>>it's only now you're piping about it? Hmmmm? >>> >>> >>>Because you stated "that is not possible with ANY replication in any >>>database version." in comp.databases.informix, which is simply not > > true. > >>That is absolute BULLSHIT. I asked: why did you not complain >>about x-posting before! Nothing to do with replication. >>Not even remotely related. If you want to take the >>"holier than thou" approach, at least be minimally consistent. >>And shove it. >> >> >>>In fact, from what I understand, Oracle streams supports this > > functionality > >>>as well. >> >>Really? Exactly WHICH functionality is "this" again? >>And you READ manuals now? >> >> >> >>>Well - so far I haven't had to resorted to insults, obscene statements, >>>zingers, or any other form of putdown. I've simply been stating facts. >> >>I couldn't care less what you "resort" to. >> >> >>>Some of your comments, however, well - they really belong in the >>>locker-room. >> >>Good. Go see if I'm there. >> Can you post something of substance instead of cut and pasting the original? Or is "cut and paste" your specialty? -- Cheers Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam