Re: Largest Informix Database size

Hey Mark, You have probably only glanced at your own companies' documentation, and don't even understand that Oracle can't scale beyond what, 2 or 3 clustered servers because of the ancient lock-manager technology embedded in that bucket 'o bolts engine(s) you guys have. I'll say it again, and say it in front of anyone at Oracle, including Mr. Cool, ORACLE CANNOT DO DATA WAREHOUSING LIKE INFORMIX. ORACLE IS TEN YEARS BEHIND INFORMIX TECHNOLOGY. Mark, when is the last time your engines were rearchitected to do REAL multithreading? HELLO! Read your own companies' book on data warehousing, and the best solution you guys have is distributed databases of discrete data, acting like fact tables. You mention MPP in the book, but cannot possibly call it that once you start to put the pieces together. Oracle is simply SMP, with mounted files, shared everything. It has no similarity whatsoever to Informix's architecture or engineering. Oracle is so far behind technically the only thing you guys can do is get your customer's focus on applications and off the data base, because if customers found out how bad it really is, they'd switch before buying it. Your lock-manager technology gets WORSE the more you cluster not better, ask people who tried it, and then switched. You guys have great marketing, lots of double talk, and don't check out the facts. Once you do, you will understand. Thanks, Keep trying... And bollocks to you too! :-) Tim Mark Townsend wrote: > > Tim Schaefer wrote: > > > other cool stuff only available with XPS. Oracle cannot do this kind of data > > base management, and will probably NEVER have this capability. The only other > > contender that I know of might be DB2, but it too is so far behind XPS it will > > never get there. > > > Oracle is so far behind these products it isn't even > > in the same category. I think Oracle is at least 10 years behind Informix > > now in technology and engine design. The latest SQL-Server from Microsoft > > is probably more advanced than Oracle too. > > Bollocks. > > There ain't anything special in XPS that isn't also provided (albeit in > slightly different ways) by Oracle, DB2 or Teradata, on clusters of MPP > technology. XPS, DB2 and Teradata are all based on shared nothing > clustering, which requires one approach, Oracle uses shared disk, which > requires another. All have been around for 1 or more decades. You pays > you money and you takes you choice. > > -- > Regards, > > Mark Townsend -- . .- .-- .--- .---- Tim Schaefer .----- tschaefe@bellsouth.net .---- http://www.inxutil.com .--- http://www.datad.com .-- .- .

Ping :-) Regards, Mark Townsend

Pong. Regards, Tim Schaefer PRESIDENT, Data Design Technologies Ft. Lauderdale, FL Oh, Mark, Your title is impressive, but in this corporate world we live, sigh, looks like I outrank you. Have your boss call me. :-) We can race Lear Jets or something. Mark Townsend wrote: > > Ping :-) > > Regards, > > Mark Townsend > >( signature omitted due to distributed lock manager failure ) -- . .- .-- .--- .---- Tim Schaefer .----- tschaefe@bellsouth.net .---- http://www.inxutil.com .--- http://www.datad.com .-- .- "I did it all for the nookie..." --Limp Bizkit .

Tim, You seem to be very knowledgeable about informix databases. Can you help with the attached. From: Ed Gerving <egerving@htscm.com> Subject: On-Line WGServer 7.12 Queries Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 8:57 AM We are using On-Line WorkGroup Server 7.12 with New Era Application. When a client executes a query it can take a very long time for the data to get to the client. The client just seems to hang while its waiting for data from the server. It appears as though the server must execute the query and get all the data before is passes it to the client? 1. Any way to speed this up? 2. If the server indeed has to get all the data first, any way to set up the server so it starts passing the data as it gets?

Sorry Ed, I don't do NewError... :-) There are others here far more experienced about New Era, please ask somebody else. Tim Ed Gerving wrote: > > Tim, > > You seem to be very knowledgeable about informix databases. Can you help > with the attached. > > From: Ed Gerving <egerving@htscm.com> > Subject: On-Line WGServer 7.12 Queries > Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 8:57 AM > > We are using On-Line WorkGroup Server 7.12 with New Era Application. When a > client executes a query it can take a very long time for the data to get to > the client. The client just seems to hang while its waiting for data from > the server. It appears as though the server must execute the query and get > all the data before is passes it to the client? > > 1. Any way to speed this up? > 2. If the server indeed has to get all the data first, any way to set up > the server so it starts passing the data as it gets? -- . .- .-- .--- .---- Tim Schaefer .----- tschaefe@bellsouth.net .---- http://www.inxutil.com .--- http://www.datad.com .-- .- .

Sounds like a missing index or outdated statistics are causing a table scan on a query with an ORDER BY or an ORDER BY to use a physical sort due to an index not matching the ORDER BY is needed for filtering and/or joining OR the ORDER BY refers to columns in mulitple tables. Run the culprit query in dbaccess with SET EXPLAIN ON and look at the sqexplain.out file to determine the problem and its solution. If you have further questions post more detail, like the query and sqexplain.out file. Art S. Kagel Ed Gerving wrote: > > Tim, > > You seem to be very knowledgeable about informix databases. Can you help > with the attached. > > From: Ed Gerving <egerving@htscm.com> > Subject: On-Line WGServer 7.12 Queries > Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 8:57 AM > > We are using On-Line WorkGroup Server 7.12 with New Era Application. When a > client executes a query it can take a very long time for the data to get to > the client. The client just seems to hang while its waiting for data from > the server. It appears as though the server must execute the query and get > all the data before is passes it to the client? > > 1. Any way to speed this up? > 2. If the server indeed has to get all the data first, any way to set up > the server so it starts passing the data as it gets?