Re: An interesting meeting with IBM
Not a technical troubleshooting thread but a discussion spun off from a report on an IBM meeting: an Informix user said that if forced to re-skill he'd pick Oracle or SQL Server rather than DB2. Another poster argued most people saying that haven't really used the alternatives, calling Oracle harder and SQL Server trivial/limited (little tuning, no logging control), and citing informal tests where DB2 built a clustered index on a 27GB table in 5 minutes and loaded it in 30 minutes versus 1.5 and 6 hours on MSSQL. A third contributor, a certified DB2 expert, agreed DB2 is likeable but noted it's rarely considered mid-range in the UK and that the best technology doesn't always win. It's opinion exchange only; no problem is solved and no resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Data, Yes, I've worked with Oracle. Not sure why you ask. Andy "Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nh2dc.60533$f53.6257@fe26.usenetserver.com>... > ( Andrew great job on the meeting and information etc! ) > > Andy, > > Have you actually used Oracle or MSSQL or DB2 in a > production environment? > > Do you understand or know anything about the > architectural differences in these products? > > Do you understand or know anything about how > these products compare to Informix? > > "Andy Kent" <andykent.bristol1095@virgin.net> wrote in message news:ac5fb36.0404070543.66cbd079@posting.google.com... > > > > Frankly if I *DO* have to re-skill and start back at the bottom rung > > I'd still be inclined to do so in Oracle or MSSQL. > > > > Andy Kent
"Andy Kent" <andykent.bristol1095@virgin.net> wrote in message news:ac5fb36.0404080205.28a8b515@posting.google.com... > Data, > > Yes, I've worked with Oracle. > > Not sure why you ask. > I needed to get answers first before proceeding. Most of the time when people say they will move to MSSQL or Oracle they typically have never worked with either of these products. It may also mean that their shop has these available and/or there is an opportunity to use or admin them. Compared to DB2, Oracle is much more difficult, and MSSQL is pathetic. When Informix people say they won't use DB2 they have not looked at the alternatives, and/or a good, close evaluation of DB2. I am not a shill for IBM, do not get paid by IBM, just my experience talking. Of the three, Oracle, DB2, and MSSQL, only DB2 is the newest. Sybase is completely out of the picture now. Oracle hasn't been changed in 10+ years, MSSQL hasn't been changed in 5 years, and these two are probably not going to change much in at least the next two years, if at all. DB2 will ultimately be the best, adding Informix features, especially for Informix people, it's very similar, but also very easy to admin. DB2 8.1 just came out, and Stinger is on the way. Any monkey can admin MSSQL, especially after Informix experience, and you will be very disappointed if you have to admin it. MSSQL has almost nothing to tune, and almost no control over logs, memory management, or engine control. MSSQL does handle big data well on queries if there are small number of users, but takes a long time to build clustered indexes on large tables--very slow, and extremely painful to load big data without being able to turn off logging. DB2 is easy too, has high-speed loader, and has a lot more control on memory management, and more tunable parameters than even Informix. Compare 5 minutes to build a clustered index on a 27GB table on DB2 with 1.5 hours on MSSQL, and only 8 MB of shared memory on DB2, and this was 4MB SHM per node ( 2 nodes ). The MSSQL box has 16 CPUs and 8 GB of memory. DB2 on Linux, 2-node cluster, each node 4-CPU Dell boxes. DB2 really does rock. Compare 30 minutes to load that 27 GB table on DB2, 6 hours on MSSQL. ( Same machines ) Unscientific test, not official benchmarks, DB2 out of the box, we didn't even know how to tune it. Now we are tuning and testing again. What do you think we will do with DB2? Change is difficult but there are not many choices when you get serious about the limited choices. About the only thing really missing in DB2 is better replication, but thank Informix for that, it's coming. Andrew ( not Andy ) you get a big pat on the back, you've probably said more than IBM will say all of this year for Informix people, giving them hope, and a way out. > Andy > > > "Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nh2dc.60533$f53.6257@fe26.usenetserver.com>... > > ( Andrew great job on the meeting and information etc! ) > > > > Andy, > > > > Have you actually used Oracle or MSSQL or DB2 in a > > production environment? > > > > Do you understand or know anything about the > > architectural differences in these products? > > > > Do you understand or know anything about how > > these products compare to Informix? > > > > "Andy Kent" <andykent.bristol1095@virgin.net> wrote in message news:ac5fb36.0404070543.66cbd079@posting.google.com... > > > > > > Frankly if I *DO* have to re-skill and start back at the bottom rung > > > I'd still be inclined to do so in Oracle or MSSQL. > > > > > > Andy Kent
"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bFbdc.55545$3L.42088@fe24.usenetserver.com... > Most of the time when people say they will move to MSSQL or > Oracle they typically have never worked with either of these > products. It may also mean that their shop has these available > and/or there is an opportunity to use or admin them. Compared > to DB2, Oracle is much more difficult, and MSSQL is pathetic. ... > DB2 will ultimately be the best, adding Informix features, ... > Any monkey can admin MSSQL, especially after Informix experience, and > you will be very disappointed if you have to admin it. MSSQL has almost > nothing to tune, and almost no control over logs, memory management, > or engine control. My experience of trying to sell technical support bears you out. Oracle *is* highly idiosyncratic, and although the principles of all these DBMSs are the same a lot here is different. It's quite difficult to blag, even for an accomplished blagger like me :-). SQL Server *is* trivial by comparison, and this has its own drawbacks - although we have a couple of SQL Server support contracts from companies familiar with the concept of specialist database administration, and they are easy to service, most customers simply don't perceive a need for specialist SQL Server DBA activities. And in many cases they may be right. As for DB2 being the best, well, you may be right. I'm a certified DB2 Systems Expert and I quite like the product. It certainly has some things from which Informix could benefit. But, as we know, it isn't necessarily the best technology that will "win". In my experience of speaking to UK customers, DB2 UDB is very little used and is rarely considered as a mid-range database option. If only IBM had a database product that had a strong reputation in the SMB area it so covets. Well, maybe, just maybe, it is coming to realise that it has ......