Re: Informix beats Oracle

Data Cruncher wrote: > > BTW did you ask for a full refund from cbronline.com now that > they recanted their story of Informix losing 80% of customer > base. > > cbronline recanted ? I saw the follow-up article where they published the statement from IBM. I didn't get the opinion that they necessarily agreed with it

Mark Townsend wrote: > Data Cruncher wrote: > >> >> BTW did you ask for a full refund from cbronline.com now that >> they recanted their story of Informix losing 80% of customer >> base. >> >> > cbronline recanted ? I saw the follow-up article where they published > the statement from IBM. I didn't get the opinion that they necessarily > agreed with it Did anyone saw the IBM agreement with the first article? I just saw a reference to a spokesperson, and I repeat my thought: kill the spokesperson, which may be difficult without knowing who it was :) -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...

>From: Fernando Nunes <spam@domus.online.pt> >Mark Townsend wrote: > > Data Cruncher wrote: > > > >> > >> BTW did you ask for a full refund from cbronline.com now that > >> they recanted their story of Informix losing 80% of customer > >> base. > >> > >> > > cbronline recanted ? I saw the follow-up article where they published > > the statement from IBM. I didn't get the opinion that they necessarily > > agreed with it > >Did anyone saw the IBM agreement with the first article? >I just saw a reference to a spokesperson, and I repeat my thought: kill the >spokesperson, which may be difficult without knowing who it was :) > That's the kicker. The 'spokesperson' was unnamed. But the ironic thing is that old 80/20 rule. That 80% of your revenue comes from 20% of your clients. With some of Informix's largest clients and oem deals, you could lose 10% of your customers and never notice. The point of the second article is that its difficult to consider who is an Informix user and who is an Informix customer. For example, OEM customers get service and support from the company that OEM's the product. So how do you count the OEM's customers? You may be able to see the number of licenses going out, but you don't know who their customers are or if a customer is purchasing multiple licenses. The truth is that IDS is growing. IBM has said that there is qtr over qtr and yr over yr growth that increasing at a significant rate. Of course without IBM breaking down their revenue by products, we'll never know. All we can say is that there is relative growth at a pace that exceeds the industry's growth. But getting back on topic, yeah IDS beats Oracle hands down for innovation. And Daniel, before you pipe in with your "yeah but look at how they are now adding features that Oracle's had for years..." That's 100% correct. They are. Not because they are great features, but because people want them so they can easily port from Oracle to IDS. Now that the secret is out, I wonder if Larry is shaking in his boots? ;-) _________________________________________________________________ http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > But getting back on topic, yeah IDS beats Oracle hands down for > innovation. Wonderful ... tell us about them. How about listing the 20 most important innovations not found in Oracle. Seriously ... I'd be interested in knowing what you think they are. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

At the risk of butting in... :-) Daniel, If Informix can meet the needs of developers who chose Oracle in the past, if for no other reason than the one or two features Oracle had that other products didn't, then doesn't it figure that in the next year or so that Informix will suddenly become more of a choice than it was in the past? I can't help but think that this particular release is more important than others, simply because of the great HA options and the ability to basically supplant Oracle by more-or-less meeting the needs of developers who thought they could only achieve certain things with Oracle. If you can do it cheaper and faster on Informix why would you use Oracle? On cost alone Larry should be concerned, and I'm willing to bet he will be out in full force soon with a counter offer to try to negate Informix. IBM has a great opportunity here to really make a move if the recent improvements and additions to Informix are as good as they appear. I'll still be waiting for that developer program, and more than willing to run it, just let me know IBM. -t- DA Morgan wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >> But getting back on topic, yeah IDS beats Oracle hands down for >> innovation. > > Wonderful ... tell us about them. How about listing the 20 most > important innovations not found in Oracle. > > Seriously ... I'd be interested in knowing what you think they are. -- -- Informix Dynamic Server Database Engine -- http://www.informix.com --

Oh daniel, Why don't you grow up. Havent' you been listening all these years. Lets talk about extensibility. Lets talk about HDR/ER. There's over 20 innovations covered by just those two groupings alone. Daniel, there's this Oracle shop here in Chicago. So proud of the fact that they sold one of their software products to Oracle who resells it under the Oracle brand. But there's just one little application that is very critical to their business that couldn't be run on Oracle. Yeah, they could only do this using IDS. When I say Oracle shop, I mean they were eating crow in that they had to bring in my team to do some work to improve this processess. So, if Oracle was such a superior product, why couldn't it do what Informix could do? >From: DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org> >To: informix-list@iiug.org >Subject: Re: Informix beats Oracle >Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:50:46 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from perform.iiug.org ([216.177.38.211]) by >bay0-mc4-f21.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon, 2 >Jul 2007 17:55:15 -0700 >Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])by perform.iiug.org >(Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4C19F5A;Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:55:12 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from perform.iiug.org ([127.0.0.1])by localhost (perform.iiug.org >[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)with ESMTP id S3FnVgXCyHse; Mon, 2 >Jul 2007 20:55:09 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by perform.iiug.org (Postfix, from userid 60001)id A34999F68; >Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:55:07 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from perform.iiug.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by perform.iiug.org >(Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3039F5A;Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:55:03 -0400 (EDT) >X-Message-Info: >LsUYwwHHNt1evGRp/ySXJyRKffw0cLRHgO5Yr2VbE2TN/pM440aktB+cbMi67nUd >X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at iiug.org >Path: >nnrp.xmission!xmission!nntp.infostrada.it!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.germany.com!news.motzarella.org!motzarella.org!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post02.iad01!post01.iad01!not-for-mail >Organization: Puget Sound Oracle Users Group >User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) >Newsgroups: comp.databases.informix >References: <mailman.343.1183418751.13675.informix-list@iiug.org> >Cache-Post-Path: bubbleator.drizzle.com!unknown@216.162.218.178 >X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) >Lines: 13 >X-Complaints-To: abuse@csolutions.net >Xref: nnrp.xmission comp.databases.informix:198100 >X-BeenThere: informix-list@iiug.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 >Precedence: list >List-Id: "comp.databases.informix" <informix-list.iiug.org> >List-Unsubscribe: ><http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list>,<mailto:informix-list-request@iiug.org?subject=unsubscribe>; >List-Archive: <http://www.iiug.org/pipermail/informix-list>; >List-Post: <mailto:informix-list@iiug.org> >List-Help: <mailto:informix-list-request@iiug.org?subject=help> >List-Subscribe: ><http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list>,<mailto:informix-list-request@iiug.org?subject=subscribe>; >Errors-To: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org >Return-Path: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2007 00:55:15.0837 (UTC) >FILETIME=[D1ACD2D0:01C7BD0C] > >Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > But getting back on topic, yeah IDS beats Oracle hands down for > > innovation. > >Wonderful ... tell us about them. How about listing the 20 most >important innovations not found in Oracle. > >Seriously ... I'd be interested in knowing what you think they are. >-- >Daniel A. Morgan >University of Washington >damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) >_______________________________________________ >Informix-list mailing list >Informix-list@iiug.org >http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507

>From: Tool <tool@thetool.com> >On cost alone Larry should be concerned, and I'm willing to bet he >will be out in full force soon with a counter offer to try to negate >Informix. > Timmy, this is c.d.i. You can butt in all you want. ;-) To the point you raise, the truth is that Larry isn't running scared. Long ago, he and Bill created the myth that the database was a commodity. It isnt. So Larry had started to focus on the application. We won't talk about Informix. After Phil, there wasn't anyone at the helm... ;-) The point is that Larry is still tied to the database as his primary revenue generator, but if you look at his acquisitions, his growth is outside of the database. _________________________________________________________________ http://liveearth.msn.com

Tool wrote: > At the risk of butting in... :-) > > Daniel, > > If Informix can meet the needs of developers who chose Oracle in the > past, if for no other reason than the one or two features Oracle had > that other products didn't, then doesn't it figure that in the next > year or so that Informix will suddenly become more of a choice than > it was in the past? > > I can't help but think that this particular release is more important > than others, simply because of the great HA options and the ability > to basically supplant Oracle by more-or-less meeting the needs of > developers who thought they could only achieve certain things with > Oracle. If you can do it cheaper and faster on Informix why would > you use Oracle? > > On cost alone Larry should be concerned, and I'm willing to bet he > will be out in full force soon with a counter offer to try to negate > Informix. > > IBM has a great opportunity here to really make a move if the recent > improvements and additions to Informix are as good as they appear. > > I'll still be waiting for that developer program, and more than willing > to run it, just let me know IBM. > > -t- > > DA Morgan wrote: >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> >>> But getting back on topic, yeah IDS beats Oracle hands down for >>> innovation. >> >> Wonderful ... tell us about them. How about listing the 20 most >> important innovations not found in Oracle. >> >> Seriously ... I'd be interested in knowing what you think they are. I think Cheetah is an important step forward for Informix. That's not being debated. What I am trying to figure out is what Ian is going on about. He is full of vague generalities but never specifics. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Oh daniel, > > Why don't you grow up. > Havent' you been listening all these years. > > Lets talk about extensibility. I'd love to. But you haven't here have you? > Lets talk about HDR/ER. Again I'd like to but you haven't mentioned a single item that supports your statement so what is there for us to discuss? > There's over 20 innovations covered by just those two groupings alone. Great ... name them then. As I said in my response to Tool you are great at vague generalities. But you made a very specific statement ... you wrote: "But getting back on topic, yeah IDS beats Oracle hands down for innovation." and I'm trying to figure out whether whatever you are referring to is truly innovative or just your ignorance of what may be in DB2, Oracle, SQL Server, or Sybase. If you've got 'em ... put 'em on the table. You remind me of the guy at the poker table who claims he has the winning hand but refuses to show anyone his cards. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Gump, I don't think Oracle runs scared. I think they live by the motto "When the going gets rough raise the billable". Get ready for the Oracle announcements, they are coming. You can set your clock by them, the announcements are coming. IBM will not be ready. You can set your clock by it. -t- Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > >> From: Tool <tool@thetool.com> >> On cost alone Larry should be concerned, and I'm willing to bet he >> will be out in full force soon with a counter offer to try to negate >> Informix. >> > > Timmy, this is c.d.i. You can butt in all you want. ;-) > > To the point you raise, the truth is that Larry isn't running scared. > > Long ago, he and Bill created the myth that the database was a commodity. > It isnt. > > So Larry had started to focus on the application. > > We won't talk about Informix. After Phil, there wasn't anyone at the > helm... ;-) > > The point is that Larry is still tied to the database as his primary > revenue generator, but if you look at his acquisitions, his growth is > outside of the database. > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://liveearth.msn.com > -- -- Informix Dynamic Server Database Engine -- http://www.informix.com --

Maybe I'm being vague because you can hear but you don't seem to listen. Again, you want innovations. Informix has the premiere HA/HDR implementation. In order to do HA/HDR, there are many moving parts. Several of these moving parts are in themselves are innovations unique to IDS. When you talk about extensibility, something even today Oracle does poorly, Informix has some unique pieces within the engine that allow it to perform better than the rest. I mean you want specifics, RTFM. The problem is that you ask a non specific question and want a specific answer. David, there's that one company in Chicago which relied on IDS to do a mission crittcal piece of their business because Oracle couldn't do it. AND THEY FRIGGIN BLED ORACLE! I MEAN HAD LARRY ELLISON PISSED IN A GLASS AND CALLED IT WINE, THEY WOULD HAVE BELIEVED HIM AND DRANK IT. Even asking for seconds. You want to go back to the 90's when IDS would showcase a new feature, and then Oracle would create some smoke and mirrors "equivelent". When pushed, it didn't really work well, but just well enough that it could be check marked off on a marketing sheet? You remind me of the Microsoft sales/marketing droid that thought Microsoft's OS was multiplatform because it ran on HP, Dell, IBM and Compaq pcs. Note this was before the pda and their foray in to cell phones, albiet, its not the same product. >From: DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org> >To: informix-list@iiug.org >Subject: Re: Informix beats Oracle >Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:29:17 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from perform.iiug.org ([216.177.38.211]) by >bay0-mc7-f15.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon, 2 >Jul 2007 20:30:30 -0700 >Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])by perform.iiug.org >(Postfix) with ESMTP id F16D49F81;Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:30:21 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from perform.iiug.org ([127.0.0.1])by localhost (perform.iiug.org >[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)with ESMTP id JxzUObhLo1Yq; Mon, 2 >Jul 2007 23:30:13 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by perform.iiug.org (Postfix, from userid 60001)id 326459F68; >Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:30:11 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from perform.iiug.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by perform.iiug.org >(Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D3A9F68;Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:30:04 -0400 (EDT) >X-Message-Info: >LsUYwwHHNt0+HH2O0qevxaPdgTD6kTV3nA7oqx4CA+j4MoxPZ4P2vG2fFnlceHsI >X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at iiug.org >Path: >nnrp.xmission!xmission!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!indigo.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!mauve.octanews.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post01.iad01!not-for-mail >Organization: Puget Sound Oracle Users Group >User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) >Newsgroups: comp.databases.informix >References: ><mailman.343.1183418751.13675.informix-list@iiug.org><1183423841.371207@bubbleator.drizzle.com><YLhii.5956$tb4.1493@fe41.usenetserver.com> >Cache-Post-Path: bubbleator.drizzle.com!unknown@216.162.218.178 >X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) >Lines: 50 >X-Complaints-To: abuse@csolutions.net >Xref: nnrp.xmission comp.databases.informix:198104 >X-BeenThere: informix-list@iiug.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 >Precedence: list >List-Id: "comp.databases.informix" <informix-list.iiug.org> >List-Unsubscribe: ><http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list>,<mailto:informix-list-request@iiug.org?subject=unsubscribe>; >List-Archive: <http://www.iiug.org/pipermail/informix-list>; >List-Post: <mailto:informix-list@iiug.org> >List-Help: <mailto:informix-list-request@iiug.org?subject=help> >List-Subscribe: ><http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list>,<mailto:informix-list-request@iiug.org?subject=subscribe>; >Errors-To: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org >Return-Path: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2007 03:30:30.0502 (UTC) >FILETIME=[81A5E860:01C7BD22] > >Tool wrote: > > At the risk of butting in... :-) > > > > Daniel, > > > > If Informix can meet the needs of developers who chose Oracle in the > > past, if for no other reason than the one or two features Oracle had > > that other products didn't, then doesn't it figure that in the next > > year or so that Informix will suddenly become more of a choice than > > it was in the past? > > > > I can't help but think that this particular release is more important > > than others, simply because of the great HA options and the ability > > to basically supplant Oracle by more-or-less meeting the needs of > > developers who thought they could only achieve certain things with > > Oracle. If you can do it cheaper and faster on Informix why would > > you use Oracle? > > > > On cost alone Larry should be concerned, and I'm willing to bet he > > will be out in full force soon with a counter offer to try to negate > > Informix. > > > > IBM has a great opportunity here to really make a move if the recent > > improvements and additions to Informix are as good as they appear. > > > > I'll still be waiting for that developer program, and more than willing > > to run it, just let me know IBM. > > > > -t- > > > > DA Morgan wrote: > >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >> > >>> But getting back on topic, yeah IDS beats Oracle hands down for > >>> innovation. > >> > >> Wonderful ... tell us about them. How about listing the 20 most > >> important innovations not found in Oracle. > >> > >> Seriously ... I'd be interested in knowing what you think they are. > >I think Cheetah is an important step forward for Informix. That's not >being debated. What I am trying to figure out is what Ian is going on >about. He is full of vague generalities but never specifics. >-- >Daniel A. Morgan >University of Washington >damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) >Puget Sound Oracle Users Group >www.psoug.org >_______________________________________________ >Informix-list mailing list >Informix-list@iiug.org >http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one place! http://maps.live.com/?wip=69&FORM=MGAC01

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Maybe I'm being vague because you can hear but you don't seem to listen. > > Again, you want innovations. > > Informix has the premiere HA/HDR implementation. What I see, again, is a vague generalities. If the shoe were on the other foot I would put together a list of features demonstrating my point. For example: 1. Do you have an equivalent technology to RAC? 2. Do you have an equivalent technology to Data Guard TAF? 3. Do you have an equivalent technology to Flashback Database? 4. Do you have an equivalent technology to Online Redefinition? 5. Do you have an equivalent technology to Grid Control Repurposing? 6. Do you have an equivalent technology to resumable transactions? 7. Do you have an equivalent technology to ASM? 8. Do you have an equivalent technology to Flashback drop? 9. Do you have an equivalent technology to Save Points? and would keep going until I hit 20. Your inability to do so clearly demonstrates that either you have no idea what is, or is not, in other RDBMS products or really don't even know what is in Informix beyond tables and indexes. > David, there's that one company in Chicago which relied on IDS to do a > mission crittcal piece of their business because Oracle couldn't do it. And the name of that company and what Oracle couldn't do is a secret. I understand. They can run most of the largest corporations on the planet but this one specific company ... whooooooooo. As William Penn wrote in Fruits of Solitude: "Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders, than from the arguments of it opposers." I'm done with this thread unless someone that actually knows both products wants to step in and help Ian out a bit. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> Maybe I'm being vague because you can hear but you don't seem to listen. >> >> Again, you want innovations. >> >> Informix has the premiere HA/HDR implementation. > > What I see, again, is a vague generalities. If the shoe were on the > other foot I would put together a list of features demonstrating > my point. For example: > > 1. Do you have an equivalent technology to RAC? > 2. Do you have an equivalent technology to Data Guard TAF? > 3. Do you have an equivalent technology to Flashback Database? > 4. Do you have an equivalent technology to Online Redefinition? > 5. Do you have an equivalent technology to Grid Control Repurposing? > 6. Do you have an equivalent technology to resumable transactions? > 7. Do you have an equivalent technology to ASM? > 8. Do you have an equivalent technology to Flashback drop? > 9. Do you have an equivalent technology to Save Points? > and would keep going until I hit 20. > I'm done with this thread unless someone that actually knows both > products wants to step in and help Ian out a bit. I have no particular interest in keeping this thread alive, and I don't want to speak by others... So, this is just my opinions... and we all know the story with opinions You have several "categories" of features here. Some of them belong to standards, others are nice (although expensive) and others are what I'd call "interesting" but I wouldn't care too much about them. This categories will influence the possibility of seeing them implemented in the future. Personally I'm not very enthusiastic about the flashback stuff (specially drops). IDS allows PIT table recover from a backup image... Eventually slower, but takes less resources, although I easily agree that in some situations flashback is nice. TAF, RAC are nice ideas. Online Redefenition is interesting, although the impression I get from fellow Oracle DBAs is that if it's an heavy hit object, it will be hard to do. The best of Informix is not easily mappable to "features". I'd say most Informix DBAs appreciate some of these: 1-DSA 2-Lightweight 3-Small footprint 4-Command line tools (onstat...) - curiously IDS 11.10 brings SQL Admin API :) 5-HDR/ER - Several improvements in IDS 11.10 6-Extents/space handling (oracle should be there with "locally managed", but Informix always worked like that..) 7-Simplicity 8-Cost. You don't need to keep talking to the IBM salesperson. Most of the features are already included. In fact I'd say IBM could do a lot better trying to cross-sell to Informix customers... 10-Optimizer behavior. Give it good statistics and you're ok. I'm amazed by the quantity of 3rd party applications that still require RULE BASED... 11-ontape. Very old, very "rustic", but still being used by lots of customers. 12-migration process. Besides the testings, it's just a mater of stopping with the old version and starting up with the new one... Even from 7 to 11.10... the process is extremely fast and quite simple 13- Several small features like in-place ALTERS. Oracle also has them but last I checked it still had bigger limitations. B-Tree cleaner/scanner is also very nice. 14-reliability/stability 15-scalability If I could choose some features Oracle has and put them in IDS I wouldn't choose the ones you mentioned... In fact, if you knew IDS reasonably well, and given your Oracle knowledge, I'd bet you would choose others :) I will not post these "favorites" here... I prefer to open them as feature requests... maybe someday some of them will see the light :) -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...

Fernando Nunes wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >>> Maybe I'm being vague because you can hear but you don't seem to listen. >>> >>> Again, you want innovations. >>> >>> Informix has the premiere HA/HDR implementation. >> >> What I see, again, is a vague generalities. If the shoe were on the >> other foot I would put together a list of features demonstrating >> my point. For example: >> >> 1. Do you have an equivalent technology to RAC? >> 2. Do you have an equivalent technology to Data Guard TAF? >> 3. Do you have an equivalent technology to Flashback Database? >> 4. Do you have an equivalent technology to Online Redefinition? >> 5. Do you have an equivalent technology to Grid Control Repurposing? >> 6. Do you have an equivalent technology to resumable transactions? >> 7. Do you have an equivalent technology to ASM? >> 8. Do you have an equivalent technology to Flashback drop? >> 9. Do you have an equivalent technology to Save Points? >> and would keep going until I hit 20. >> I'm done with this thread unless someone that actually knows both >> products wants to step in and help Ian out a bit. > > I have no particular interest in keeping this thread alive, and I don't > want to speak by others... So, this is just my opinions... and we all > know the story with opinions > > You have several "categories" of features here. Some of them belong to > standards, others are nice (although expensive) and others are what I'd > call "interesting" but I wouldn't care too much about them. This > categories will influence the possibility of seeing them implemented in > the future. > > Personally I'm not very enthusiastic about the flashback stuff > (specially drops). IDS allows PIT table recover from a backup image... > Eventually slower, but takes less resources, although I easily agree > that in some situations flashback is nice. > > TAF, RAC are nice ideas. > Online Redefenition is interesting, although the impression I get from > fellow Oracle DBAs is that if it's an heavy hit object, it will be hard > to do. > > The best of Informix is not easily mappable to "features". I'd say most > Informix DBAs appreciate some of these: > > 1-DSA > 2-Lightweight > 3-Small footprint > 4-Command line tools (onstat...) - curiously IDS 11.10 brings SQL Admin > API :) > 5-HDR/ER - Several improvements in IDS 11.10 > 6-Extents/space handling (oracle should be there with "locally managed", > but Informix always worked like that..) > 7-Simplicity > 8-Cost. You don't need to keep talking to the IBM salesperson. Most of > the features are already included. In fact I'd say IBM could do a lot > better trying to cross-sell to Informix customers... > 10-Optimizer behavior. Give it good statistics and you're ok. I'm amazed > by the quantity of 3rd party applications that still require RULE BASED... > 11-ontape. Very old, very "rustic", but still being used by lots of > customers. > 12-migration process. Besides the testings, it's just a mater of > stopping with the old version and starting up with the new one... Even > from 7 to 11.10... the process is extremely fast and quite simple > 13- Several small features like in-place ALTERS. Oracle also has them > but last I checked it still had bigger limitations. B-Tree > cleaner/scanner is also very nice. > 14-reliability/stability > 15-scalability > > > > If I could choose some features Oracle has and put them in IDS I > wouldn't choose the ones you mentioned... In fact, if you knew IDS > reasonably well, and given your Oracle knowledge, I'd bet you would > choose others :) > I will not post these "favorites" here... I prefer to open them as > feature requests... maybe someday some of them will see the light :) I only chose that specific list because they were features related to high availability which is what Ian was going off about. Not sure why you listed #2 unless I misunderstand your use of "lightweight." Not sure why you listed #3 either. Given the current price of disk the Oracle footprint works out to about $11.25 at retail. Not exactly the kind of thing anyone is going to even notice with an enterprise database. #6 makes sense but given Oracle has had locally managed tablespaces since 8i (1999) its a bit of old news. #7 fascinates me but I've yet to see anyone detail what specifically qualifies as "simplicity." What is it that is simple in product I but not simple in product O? Can't disagree with #8 but then I expect IBM would raise the price to what the market would bear if it would bear higher. No #9. #10 is dead with 10g as Rule Based is history. But third-party apps not being well written and not being kept up-to-date is hardly the fault of the underlying database product. Put those apps on SQL Server or DB2 and they are equally rotten. Ontape (#11) is good and has traditionally been the best but the capabilities added to RMAN in 10g (single block recovery of an online object) has it trumped. Truth is few people I know back up to tape anymore anyway. We all back up to cabinets full of SATA drives and ship the drives off-site. I'd be interested in comparing limitations (#13). What limitations are you referring to? With regard to indexes ... all indexes in Oracle can be rebuilt/coalesced real-time and in parallel. Check out DBMS_PCXUTIL, and . http://www.psoug.org/reference/dbms_pclxutil.html http://www.psoug.org/reference/dbms_index_utl.html http://www.psoug.org/reference/dbms_i_index_utl.html The fact that Oracle provides capabilities but most DBAs are too lazy to learn them is not the fault of the software. I'll discount 14 and 15 on your list as those are not "features" in the sense that the term is normally used but I will look into #1 as it is the only one I am not familiar with. Thanks for helping Ian out though they are not the 20 HA features he was pontificating about.. <g> -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

RAC may be a nice idea theoretically, but practically it is not. Any cluster technology which relies on the presence of a central node to control it is only as strong as the weakest link and will, by definition, have scalability issues. j. -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org]On Behalf Of Fernando Nunes Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 8:27 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: Informix beats Oracle DA Morgan wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> Maybe I'm being vague because you can hear but you don't seem to listen. >> >> Again, you want innovations. >> >> Informix has the premiere HA/HDR implementation. > > What I see, again, is a vague generalities. If the shoe were on the > other foot I would put together a list of features demonstrating > my point. For example: > > 1. Do you have an equivalent technology to RAC? > 2. Do you have an equivalent technology to Data Guard TAF? > 3. Do you have an equivalent technology to Flashback Database? > 4. Do you have an equivalent technology to Online Redefinition? > 5. Do you have an equivalent technology to Grid Control Repurposing? > 6. Do you have an equivalent technology to resumable transactions? > 7. Do you have an equivalent technology to ASM? > 8. Do you have an equivalent technology to Flashback drop? > 9. Do you have an equivalent technology to Save Points? > and would keep going until I hit 20. > I'm done with this thread unless someone that actually knows both > products wants to step in and help Ian out a bit. I have no particular interest in keeping this thread alive, and I don't want to speak by others... So, this is just my opinions... and we all know the story with opinions You have several "categories" of features here. Some of them belong to standards, others are nice (although expensive) and others are what I'd call "interesting" but I wouldn't care too much about them. This categories will influence the possibility of seeing them implemented in the future. Personally I'm not very enthusiastic about the flashback stuff (specially drops). IDS allows PIT table recover from a backup image... Eventually slower, but takes less resources, although I easily agree that in some situations flashback is nice. TAF, RAC are nice ideas. Online Redefenition is interesting, although the impression I get from fellow Oracle DBAs is that if it's an heavy hit object, it will be hard to do. The best of Informix is not easily mappable to "features". I'd say most Informix DBAs appreciate some of these: 1-DSA 2-Lightweight 3-Small footprint 4-Command line tools (onstat...) - curiously IDS 11.10 brings SQL Admin API :) 5-HDR/ER - Several improvements in IDS 11.10 6-Extents/space handling (oracle should be there with "locally managed", but Informix always worked like that..) 7-Simplicity 8-Cost. You don't need to keep talking to the IBM salesperson. Most of the features are already included. In fact I'd say IBM could do a lot better trying to cross-sell to Informix customers... 10-Optimizer behavior. Give it good statistics and you're ok. I'm amazed by the quantity of 3rd party applications that still require RULE BASED... 11-ontape. Very old, very "rustic", but still being used by lots of customers. 12-migration process. Besides the testings, it's just a mater of stopping with the old version and starting up with the new one... Even from 7 to 11.10... the process is extremely fast and quite simple 13- Several small features like in-place ALTERS. Oracle also has them but last I checked it still had bigger limitations. B-Tree cleaner/scanner is also very nice. 14-reliability/stability 15-scalability If I could choose some features Oracle has and put them in IDS I wouldn't choose the ones you mentioned... In fact, if you knew IDS reasonably well, and given your Oracle knowledge, I'd bet you would choose others :) I will not post these "favorites" here... I prefer to open them as feature requests... maybe someday some of them will see the light :) -- 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