Are people using db2 on Windows?

[AK]

Re: Are people using db2 on Windows?

thanks Mark[color=blue]
> We currently have over 1.7 million time series, and growing.[/color]

How many Gb (or Tb) is that?

S Novym Godom!

[Mark Yudkin]

Re: Are people using db2 on Windows?

Fairly small (30GB). It's a statistical database: each observation is 10
bytes (unless commented: most aren't). The working set (amount of data
accessed daily) is around 4GB; individual queries can return >100MB. For
this reason, I gave you the only figure of any real value - the number of
time series.

The system has 4 CPUs and 2.75GB RAM (and due to be replaced with a faster
system soon).

"AK" <ak_tiredofspam @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46e627da.0 312310644.4b096 1db@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> thanks Mark[color=green]
> > We currently have over 1.7 million time series, and growing.[/color]
>
> How many Gb (or Tb) is that?
>
> S Novym Godom![/color]

[Mark Yudkin]

Re: Are people using db2 on Windows?

Leaving aside the tone of this dicussion, the S38 and later AS/400 had
KSDS-like file access only. It was not a relational database, or even
something approximating one. It did not implement much of the basic
functionality, and in no way can it be considered to have "some basic
relational database constructs built in". DB2 for AS/400 came much later.

"Richard D. Latham" <lathamr@us.ibm .com> wrote in message
news:brprr54n.f sf@us.ibm.com.. .[color=blue]
> "Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> writes:
>[color=green]
> > "Karl Hanson" <kchanson@youes s.ibm.com> wrote in message
> > news:3FEC64ED.5 090502@youess.i bm.com...[color=darkred]
> > > Excerpt from a recent article:
> > >[/color]
> >[/color][/color]
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...0301jones.html[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > >
> > > "The first implementation of relational technologies from
> > > the initial System R project was the database integrated
> > > into the System/38 server in 1980. In 1982, the SQL/DS
> > > product was delivered on the mainframe operating systems
> > > VM and VSE, also based on System R."
> > >
> > > The IBM System/38 (AS/400 predecessor) operating system had some basic
> > > relational database constructs "built in". As with AS/400, there
> > > was no[/color][/color]
>
> < snip - save bandwidth >
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >
> > > Karl Hanson
> > >[/color]
> > I am sorry, but this is unadulterated BS. The AS/400 had an inverted[/color][/color]
list[color=blue][color=green]
> > file access method, much like VSAM KSDS that existed on mainframe long
> > before that. It is not relational. There were other inverted list[/color][/color]
databases[color=blue][color=green]
> > such as ADABAS and M204 that are not relational and existed long before,
> > even if they had "some basic relational database constructs". Having[/color][/color]
some[color=blue][color=green]
> > relational concepts is not the same as a relational DBMS. Complete BS.
> > Complete and total BS.
> >
> >[/color]
>
> Mark A ... whoever you are.
>
> Since you care neither to disclose your company affliliation, or even
> your last name, I think most everyone is going to assume you're just a
> regular garden variety troll.
>
>
> --
> #include <disclaimer.std > /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
> /* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
> /* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
> Richard D. Latham lathamr@us.ibm. com[/color]