Re: Top Databases Used

I feel sorry for you actually. I was told once that when people end up insulting you personally, it generally means that you've won the argument and the other person has nothing more left to say. Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you think it is better. Are you up to it? DNP

DNP wrote: > > Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic > Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you > think it is better. 1. "sqlcmd" is better than other tools (sybase, postgres etc.) that I've been working with 2. DBI::Informix is very nice (for programming in perl) 3. dbschema utility (and similar utilities) 4. C-ISAM simple flat-file, works nicely, stable 5. Informix SE my favorite no-nonsense database, (->backup works on a per file basis!) 6. Informix online/dynamic as upgrade option for backup while transactions take place (I have no experience with 6 but can imagine it is also a good reason to like Informix).

DNP wrote: > > I feel sorry for you actually. > > I was told once that when people end up insulting you personally, it > generally means that you've won the argument and the other person has > nothing more left to say. > > Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic > Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you > think it is better. > > Are you up to it? Sure: o Better data maintenance tools including schema tool, binary and text export/import tools, dbaccess. o Better DBA interfaces and tools: onmonitor, Informix Database Administrator, ONCONFIG & sqlhosts files. o Less arcane server setup/installation methods o Multiple databases in a single server o OS Level security support o Better development tools (ie R4GL, C4GL, ISQL, D4GL, SDK ) o Better integration of Datablades (or the equivalent) o Better integration of UDTs and UDRs o Fewer SQL extensions to lock software into the product o Better server scaleability with multiple databases, multiple users, large datasets, high transaction rates, etc. Oh, I'm sorry I got carried away you did only ask for 5 (that's spelled f*i*v*e by the way) didn't you. I'll stop here then, but I could go on. For instance: o Servers that stay online without a cron script to restart them hourly o Servers that do not hog the CPUs o Native binary data types o True SERIAL type columns o True in-server BLOB storage management Oh, sorry there I go again... Art S. Kagel

"Art S. Kagel" wrote: > > DNP wrote: > > > > I feel sorry for you actually. > > > > I was told once that when people end up insulting you personally, it > > generally means that you've won the argument and the other person has > > nothing more left to say. > > > > Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic > > Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you > > think it is better. > > > > Are you up to it? > > Sure: > > o Better data maintenance tools including schema tool, binary and text > export/import tools, dbaccess. > o Better DBA interfaces and tools: onmonitor, Informix Database > Administrator, ONCONFIG & sqlhosts files. > o Less arcane server setup/installation methods > o Multiple databases in a single server > o OS Level security support > o Better development tools (ie R4GL, C4GL, ISQL, D4GL, SDK ) > o Better integration of Datablades (or the equivalent) > o Better integration of UDTs and UDRs > o Fewer SQL extensions to lock software into the product > o Better server scaleability with multiple databases, multiple users, > large datasets, high transaction rates, etc. > > Oh, I'm sorry I got carried away you did only ask for 5 (that's spelled > f*i*v*e by the way) didn't you. I'll stop here then, but I could go on. > For instance: > > o Servers that stay online without a cron script to restart them hourly > o Servers that do not hog the CPUs > o Native binary data types > o True SERIAL type columns > o True in-server BLOB storage management > > Oh, sorry there I go again... o Better and more consistent backup capabilities at the server level -- ontape (while the engine remains online, too) o Better built-in instance reporting -- onstat. Note, I can use the SMI as well, but for the quick and dirty reporting . o Great features built-in to the product without an extra charge (table fragmentation, parallelism (index builds). o Plus others already mentioned -- way to go, Art. -- John Carlson Informix DBA WHSmith USA #include std_disclaimer.h /* These are my opinions, not my company's opinion */

"Carlson@WHSmith" wrote: > > "Art S. Kagel" wrote: > > > > DNP wrote: > > > > > > I feel sorry for you actually. > > > > > > I was told once that when people end up insulting you personally, it > > > generally means that you've won the argument and the other person has > > > nothing more left to say. > > > > > > Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic > > > Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you > > > think it is better. > > > > > > Are you up to it? > > > > Sure: > > > > o Better data maintenance tools including schema tool, binary and text > > export/import tools, dbaccess. > > o Better DBA interfaces and tools: onmonitor, Informix Database > > Administrator, ONCONFIG & sqlhosts files. > > o Less arcane server setup/installation methods > > o Multiple databases in a single server > > o OS Level security support > > o Better development tools (ie R4GL, C4GL, ISQL, D4GL, SDK ) > > o Better integration of Datablades (or the equivalent) > > o Better integration of UDTs and UDRs > > o Fewer SQL extensions to lock software into the product > > o Better server scaleability with multiple databases, multiple users, > > large datasets, high transaction rates, etc. > > > > Oh, I'm sorry I got carried away you did only ask for 5 (that's spelled > > f*i*v*e by the way) didn't you. I'll stop here then, but I could go on. > > For instance: > > > > o Servers that stay online without a cron script to restart them hourly > > o Servers that do not hog the CPUs > > o Native binary data types > > o True SERIAL type columns > > o True in-server BLOB storage management > > > > Oh, sorry there I go again... > > o Better and more consistent backup capabilities at the server level -- > ontape (while the engine remains online, too) > o Better built-in instance reporting -- onstat. Note, I can use the SMI > as well, but for the quick and dirty reporting . > o Great features built-in to the product without an extra charge (table > fragmentation, parallelism (index builds). > o Plus others already mentioned -- way to go, Art. Thanks, I really did not want to embarass the guy by mentioning these very basic and important features as well as things like: o Alter table without unloading o In-place alter without immediate reorganization o Table reorg/compression without reloading o Detached indexes o User defined indexing o User defined sort functions o Parallelization of UDRs o Optimization of UDTs, UDRs and UDIs To be fair I have always wanted a TRUNCATE command like Oracle has, OH! I forgot we got that in 9.20! But there I go again, please someone stop me before I reproduce about a fourth of the Informix manual set! Oh yeah, did I mention a set of manuals that one can actually USE for something other than to squash bugs? Art S. Kagel

Please also try to rollback CREATE TABLE t1 (c1 CHAR(1)) in Oracle. In article <3917203B.450@btinternet.com>, High.Flight@btinternet.com wrote: > I feel sorry for you actually. > > I was told once that when people end up insulting you personally, it > generally means that you've won the argument and the other person has > nothing more left to say. > > Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic > Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you > think it is better. > > Are you up to it? > > DNP > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Mon, 08 May 2000 21:14:51 +0100, DNP Wrote: > I feel sorry for you actually. > No really I feel sorry for *you*. > I was told once that when people end up insulting you personally, it > generally means that you've won the argument and the other person has > nothing more left to say. > And your point is precisely ? You are a crap troll - maybe you ought to check out alt.tv.teletubbies I am sure there are plenty of unresolved advocacy issues you can stir them up about. > Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic > Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you > think it is better. At the last count I think you had been presented with at least four times that number. /J\\

DNP wrote: > > I feel sorry for you actually. > > I was told once that when people end up insulting you personally, it > generally means that you've won the argument and the other person has > nothing more left to say. > > Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic > Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you > think it is better. > > Are you up to it? OK I took up your challenge. You take mine. List ANY reasons, quick or slow, why you think that Oracle is a better Relational and Object Relational database server. Oh better marketing and the fact that Larry knows how to swing a katana do not count! And I promise I will not blast up to three unsupportable claims. Art S. Kagel

In article <391835E0.6D6B2415@bloomberg.net>, kagel@bloomberg.net wrote: > DNP wrote: > > > > I feel sorry for you actually. > > > > I was told once that when people end up insulting you personally, it > > generally means that you've won the argument and the other person has > > nothing more left to say. > > > > Leaving that to one side; if Informix is so good, then you enthusiastic > > Informix people should have no trouble giving me 5 quick reasons why you > > think it is better. > > > > Are you up to it? > > OK I took up your challenge. You take mine. List ANY reasons, quick or > slow, why you think that Oracle is a better Relational and Object Relational > database server. Oh better marketing and the fact that Larry knows how to > swing a katana do not count! And I promise I will not blast up to three > unsupportable claims. > > Art S. Kagel > Oooooo.... This could get ugly. -- # unrm / ksh: unrm: not found # man cpio Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Yawn Yawn Yawn. Why don't you all try mentioning a feature that Informix has that Oracle hasn't? You haven't yet as far as I can see. If the Oracle Manuals are as difficult to read as I saw posted here, then I suppose it's no surprise that you have no idea about Oracle's capabilities. Just one other thing - you lose credibility to any objective observer when you use the phrase :- <QUOTE> >Servers that stay online without a cron script to restart them hourly. </QUOTE> If you are seriously portraying this as a common characteristic of Oracle then you lot are clearly beyond salvation. In fact, that king of phrase actually says a lot about this whole thread and newsgroup. I'll probably drive by you an Informix DBA one day, sleeping in old newspapers on a park bench. How much use will it be to he/she then to be able to talk nonsense about Oracle? and maybe nonsense about Informix as well probably? Maybe that will be part of the reason he/she will be on the bench to begin with. Instead of an objective, qualititative discussion about pros. and cons. all you can do is come out with nonsense like :- <QUOTE> >Servers that stay online without a cron script to restart them hourly. </QUOTE> I bet you are all taken VERY seriously when you quote opinions like that (NOT!). Bet you are held in HIGH regard in your workplaces (NOT!). So if in the event you find yourself sleeping rough on a park bench, babbling semi-incoherently about how good Informix is, then when you me coming and handling you a $5 note, you'll remember this post. P.S. to help you identify me when we meet, I'll be driving a B.M.W. 5 series, white trouses, navy blue shirt (my favourite colour), white canvass shoes (again my favourite), dark hair, and a smile on my face! DNP.

The only ugly thing thats going to happen to Informix people here is that they will be out of a job sooner or later. I think THAT's ugly. Not some bitstreams being carried through the Internet using the NNTP. DNP.

DNP <High.Flight@btinternet.com> writes: > Yawn Yawn Yawn. I can probably live with your clueless remarks, but it's a _little_ difficult to see who you're answering... How old are you btw? Thomas

DNP wrote: > Yawn Yawn Yawn. > > Why don't you all try mentioning a feature that Informix has that Oracle > hasn't? Then why not address my serious points one by one? Why only attack the one tongue in cheek remark? Actually, we saw the Oracle engine crash about once a month, I was not commenting on real stability but on the confidence the Oracle employees who set up that rediculous cron had in their employer's product. > > You haven't yet as far as I can see. > > If the Oracle Manuals are as difficult to read as I saw posted here, > then I suppose it's no surprise that you have no idea about Oracle's > capabilities. THAT's the problem! I, an individual of no little intellect, who has used as DBA, user, and programmer every major and many minor RDBMS products on the market since 1981 does not have a clue about the features and capabilities of the most popular (by sales) database package available today and the reason is that its manuals are so bad that such an experienced, sophisticated, and intelligent user cannot make heads or tails of their content. Damn, I should have seen it! > Just one other thing - you lose credibility to any objective observer > when you use the phrase :- > > <QUOTE> > >Servers that stay online without a cron script to restart them hourly. > </QUOTE> > That was tongue in cheek, <expletive deleted>. Besides that REALLY did happen here! > > If you are seriously portraying this as a common characteristic of > Oracle then you lot are clearly beyond salvation. > See above. > > In fact, that king of phrase actually says a lot about this whole thread > and newsgroup. > > I'll probably drive by you an Informix DBA one day, sleeping in old > newspapers on a park bench. > Only if I own the park, dude. > [Moronic raving SNIPPED] I notice that three days have gone by and you have yet to take up my counter challenge and name advantages of Oracle. Art S. Kagel

I know at least two companies that replaced Oracle with Informix as the backend database for an ERP application and replaced it with Informix because after about 125 users the database crapped out. JB In article <391A6B07.5E06@btinternet.com>, High.Flight@btinternet.com wrote: > The only ugly thing thats going to happen to Informix people here is > that they will be out of a job sooner or later. > > I think THAT's ugly. > > Not some bitstreams being carried through the Internet using the NNTP. > > DNP. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Again, as a company or DBA I would surely be sweating it if I couldn't make Oracle work with 125 users. Pretty pathetic, and I surely wouldn't admit it. azteczenith@my-deja.com wrote: > I know at least two companies that replaced Oracle with Informix as the > backend database for an ERP application and replaced it with Informix > because after about 125 users the database crapped out. > > JB > > In article <391A6B07.5E06@btinternet.com>, > High.Flight@btinternet.com wrote: > > The only ugly thing thats going to happen to Informix people here is > > that they will be out of a job sooner or later. > > > > I think THAT's ugly. > > > > Not some bitstreams being carried through the Internet using the NNTP. > > > > DNP. > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

In article <391A69AD.234@btinternet.com>, DNP <High.Flight@btinternet.com> writes >Yawn Yawn Yawn. > David steams in from left field.. Yeah, let's play. >Why don't you all try mentioning a feature that Informix has that Oracle >hasn't? > Alter table which takes < 10 second even on 1,000,000 row tables. create table job (i int); ... insert 1,000,000 rows into job alter table job add fred date); <- 2 seconds on a Sun 1/170 with a 170Mhz CPU.. How long does Oracle take to alter the table? i.e. How long does the application need to be down whilst you do the application upgrade which adds this new field to your application? >You haven't yet as far as I can see. > One right there. > >DNP. -- David Williams