Re: Database Comparison

From: Mark Greene <greenemj@my-deja.com> > >In article <83npbi$qvq$1@news.xmission.com>, > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: > >[snip] > > > Just checking that he didn't mean "flat file"... :-) > >Hmm.... he could have. Because UniVerse is variable-length & >multi-valued, the over-generalization tends to label everything else as >"flat", and the "flat file" bit is often (incorrectly) used >interchangably. > >But you'd have to confirm with him to be sure. Whoa! You're confusing me... > > > > 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. > > > > Also true. I just didn't want anybody to think that the capability of > > storing meta data gave you the grunt to build a datawarehouse. > >Don't know enough about datawharehousing to say. It's a start, but how >much beyond that I don't know. My employer is currently using RedBrick >as the warehouse engine, with DataStage as the middleware (on a Sun >ES10000!), but I'm not in that group, so I don't get to play there. :-( Jeeze, what an over kill. Still, I suppose you have to find *some* way of making those two perform... :-> > > Anyway, "post-relational" sucks. > > > > :-) > >Ah, evidentally over-generalization is not limited to those working with >UniVerse. :-) Oh, yes it is! (Panto season, anyone? :-) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com