Re: Support turnaround time
Continuing a debate that began elsewhere, Mark Townsend and Ian Michael Gumby traded barbs about Oracle temp tables. Serge Rielau objected to the repeated criticism, noting temp tables are SQL standard and Oracle uses associative arrays with BULK COLLECT and FORALL instead. Ian argued IDS does certain things right, and another poster said DB2 9.5 was impressive. Opinion exchange; nothing resolved.
Auto-generated by Claude from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > why don't you fix Oracle's > kludge of "global temp tables" OK - I'll get that done, you get professional help. Agreed ? Seems like a win-win for us all, then.
On Jul 13, 1:06 pm, Mark Townsend <markbtowns...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > why don't you fix Oracle's > > kludge of "global temp tables" > > OK - I'll get that done, you get professional help. Agreed ? Seems like > a win-win for us all, then. Mark, I would be amazed if Oracle did fix their temp tables. With respect to "professional help", you're the one who's passing the hat around to help get me a bottle of "medicine". A rare malt does wonders for the soul. ;-)
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Jul 13, 1:06 pm, Mark Townsend <markbtowns...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >>> why don't you fix Oracle's >>> kludge of "global temp tables" >> OK - I'll get that done, you get professional help. Agreed ? Seems like >> a win-win for us all, then. > I would be amazed if Oracle did fix their temp tables. *sigh*enough already! What is this harping at temp tables. 1. Of all they are SQL Standard and Oracle (and DB2 for zOS) implemented that standard. 2. There are many ways to carve a Peking duck (one should never skin a cat... ). In Oracle Associative arrays are typically used to store temporary result sets in conjunction with BULK COLLECT and FORALL to move the stuff back and forth quickly. This whole religious warfare about temp tables proves nothing more than a lack of ability to think outside the box the participants grew up in. Whether it's you harping about Oracle and that other nuisance about SQL Server. All ignorance in display. If Oracle customers had an issue with CGTT or "index by tables" I'm sure Oracle had fixed it by now... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
On Jul 13, 8:04 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: Serge defending Mark? LOL I guess when both DB2 and Oracle have legacy code for temp tables that can't compete with IDS, they have to stick together. Hey Serge, as someone who has to use the product everyday and work around such deficiencies, you really need to listen to the customer. I mean after all, if IBM isn't going to do the things to promote IDS on parity with DB2, why then don't they at least learn from IDS and implement said solutions in DB2. I mean how's those data cartridges working out? 8^) Oh sorry, that's Oracle's attempt at extensibility to compete with data blades. What was it that IBM tried to do? And even when I was working for IBM, I had a hard time finding anyone who could explain IBM's DB2 extensibility. So lets give credit where credit is due Serge. IDS does do certain technologies right.
In article <ca66d6c3-24cc-4a89-af06-f783744dee3d@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Ian Michael Gumby says... >I mean after all, if IBM isn't going to do the things to promote IDS >on parity with DB2, why then don't they at least learn from IDS and >implement said solutions in DB2. db2 is getting better and better. In fact now almost as good as IDS. I am a IDS fanatic, but I am mightily impressed by Db2 9.5. You really have to stop patronizing others.