Re: Database Comparison

From: Jeff Weidler <weidler@ibm.net> > >John, you might add UniVerse to the list of databases to compare as the new >Informix product from Ardent, Datastage for data warehousing, is based on >UniVerse. It just might compare rather nicely to those flat databases. >Jeff (G-d forgive me, I'm about to stick up for Oracle! Even if it is by implication!) >John Shoemaker wrote: > > > I am currently doing a comparison between Informix, IBM DB2 (UDB), and > > Oracle for > > use as a data warehouse on Unix. Can anyone with experience with these > > other databases > > give some comparative information? In what way is any of these a "flat" database? The fact that Datastage uses UniVerse to store its (relatively trivial) meta data hardly qualifies it as a repository for a data warehouse!! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

In article <83kvlt$j6k$1@news.xmission.com>, "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: [snip] > > In what way is any of these a "flat" database? "flat" in that they are columns & rows of fixed length as opposed to UniVerse which is not. > The fact that Datastage uses > UniVerse to store its (relatively trivial) meta data hardly qualifies it as > a repository for a data warehouse!! Not that I disagree with the above assertation from the perspective in which it's presented (meta data does not a data wharehouse make), but OTOH, it certainly does not *exclude* UniVerse from being a repository for a data wharehouse. -- Mark "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like." Abraham Lincoln Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.