Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

[DA Morgan]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Bruce M wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hans Forbrich <news.hans@telu s.net> wrote in message news:<h3Scd.182 05$cr4.15935@ed tnps84>...
>[color=green]
>>Mark Townsend wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Rhino wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is *not* a troll and we don't want to start a flame war! Scott just
>>>>want some honest facts to help him decide which product is best at which
>>>>jobs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Two things
>>>
>>>1) This WILL end in a flame war.[/color]
>>
>>I agree Mark. This discussion, in a public forum such as these lists, will
>>attract the strong supporters and will invariably devolve to a religious
>>discussion.
>>
>>First step should be to develop a set of business requirements. Then ask
>>experts to explain how each product under consideration will satisfy the
>>requirement s.
>>
>>Then decide based on who you trust! Ultimately both products, as well as
>>some open source (or soon to be open source - sic), will satisfy many
>>business requirements.
>>
>>
>><Now my religious rant ...>
>>
>>Don't let anyone tell you that Oracle is the most expensive - that myth
>>comes from people who buy before they think (or have someone else think for
>>them) and then avoid or are ignorant of what they have bought. And is
>>encouraged by each and every competitor.
>>
>>If used properly, and if you don't re-invent the wheel by using built-in
>>features and capabilities, the difference in long term cost (between
>>Oracle, DB2, Ingres, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, etc.) is very, very
>>small.
>>
>>I happen to prefer Oracle because it provides a lot of functionality in the
>>database at no additional price - functionality that I see required in many
>>apps such as: workflow, message queueing, replication, subqueries, direct
>>http request/response capability, security, backup/recovery, admin &
>>management tools, job scheduler (akin to cron, but inside the DB), DB
>>initiated callouts to OS shared libraries, DB initiated mail & page, DB
>>initiated TCP calls, and so on.
>>
>>These capabilities may exist in other database managers, but if not (or if
>>the developer doesn't know/understand how to use them in Oracle) these
>>capabilitie s will be duplicated. That moves the money from "product price"
>>to "developmen t cost" in creating the application and the cost of
>>supporting the application into the hands of the developer instead of the
>>'vendor'. (You pay for it somehow <g>)
>>
>>Aside from that, there _are_ a few technical differences ... I'll leave
>>those to others.
>>
>><end rant>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>2) You have posted this message to a defunct Oracle group. If you insist
>>>on starting this at least use the right targets -
>>>comp.databas es.oracle.serve r[/color]
>>
>>Copied to comp.databases. oracle.server. Requesting all other threads and
>>potential replies to this one PLEASE remove cdo and only use cdo.server
>>
>>Thanks
>>/Hans[/color]
>
>
> -----------------
>
> Huh? This guy is told NOT to get religous and there somebody gets
> religious on him...not fair.[/color]

Well I'll gladly bow my head and pray that he and all other trolls go
away forever. That's about as religious as I'm willing to get. It is
no wonder Rhinos are an endangered species.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Rhino wrote:
[color=blue]
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1098155825 .612649@yasure. ..
>[color=green]
>>Rhino wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>Secondly, when you post and ask such questions here ... all you are
>>>>going to get are people's opinions ... some very biased opinions.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's why I was hoping to hear from people who had used both Oracle and[/color][/color]
>
> DB2
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>but weren't employees (or resellers) of either of them. The marketing
>>>informatio n by the vendor always tends to be skewed in some way that is
>>>favourable to the vendor but not necessarily a fair way.[/color]
>>
>>So what exactly is the value given by people in the DB2 usenet group
>>saying "We're best" while the people in the Oracle usenet groups say
>>"We're best"?
>>[/color]
>
> I was actually hoping to hear from people who had used BOTH products so that
> they could tell me which they prefered and why.
>
> Rhino[/color]

I've used both and would gladly tell you which I prefer and why. But not
when, in my opinion, you start off with a bold faced lie. Following that
lie you then claim to not be a troll and not to be trying to start a
flame war.

I wasn't going to believe the first lie ... why should I not suspect the
second and third statements of being of equal value?

--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Rhino wrote:
[color=blue]
> I've only mentioned my friend's first name because I am trying to protect
> his privacy but he definitely exists. If you like, I'll ask him for
> permission to specify his full name, mailing address, and phone number and
> then you can contact him to ask if he really exists.[/color]

I wouldn't believe you if he wrote me a check. Your statements were
preposterous on their face: And they still are.

If you want information on these products go to http://www.ibm.com and
http://otn.oracle.com. Your credibility in all of these groups among, it
seems, all posters is zero.

--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Rhino wrote:
[color=blue]
> Nobody's looking for a free ride. He/we just wanted to hear from people who
> had used BOTH products to see what their pros and cons were. He/we also
> wanted recommendations about good independent sources of reviews of these
> products. That's exactly what I asked for.
>
> Rhino[/color]

And exactly what you are not going to get as I haven't found a single
post from anyone that believes you. It is absolutely impossible for the
situation you presented to be true.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[Mikito Harakiri]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Hans Forbrich <news.hans@telu s.net> wrote in message news:<h3Scd.182 05$cr4.15935@ed tnps84>...[color=blue]
> ...functionalit y that I see required in many
> apps such as: workflow, message queueing, replication, subqueries, direct
> http request/response capability, security, backup/recovery, admin &
> management tools, job scheduler (akin to cron, but inside the DB), DB
> initiated callouts to OS shared libraries, DB initiated mail & page, DB
> initiated TCP calls, and so on.[/color]

I alway wondered what is the true value of those bells and whistles.
Let's not forget that RDBMS essentially is a SQL execution engine, and
everything else should be judged from the perspective how well does it
fit into that primary purpose. Therefore, let's go through your list
itemized:

1. "workflow". What exactly is this? A bunch of boxes connected with
arrows with some state flowing through them? A very rudimentary
execution environment, if you ask me: no composite data structures, no
exception handling, no debugger, or other things that we take for
granted in any decent programming language today. Does workflow scale
when comlexity increases? And finally how does workflow fit into SQL
execution? I bet any seasonamble programming would prefer to deal with
business logic in a conventional programming language rather than
workflow.

2. "message queueing". Isn't message queue just a table? If it is,
then wouldn't it be easy to leverage SQL interface instead of goofy
PL/SQL API?

3. "http request/response capability". Isn't apache no longer a part
of default server installation in 10g?

[Hans Forbrich]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Mikito Harakiri wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hans Forbrich <news.hans@telu s.net> wrote in message
> news:<h3Scd.182 05$cr4.15935@ed tnps84>...[color=green]
>> ...functionalit y that I see required in many
>> apps such as: workflow, message queueing, replication, subqueries, direct
>> http request/response capability, security, backup/recovery, admin &
>> management tools, job scheduler (akin to cron, but inside the DB), DB
>> initiated callouts to OS shared libraries, DB initiated mail & page, DB
>> initiated TCP calls, and so on.[/color]
>
> I alway wondered what is the true value of those bells and whistles.
> Let's not forget that RDBMS essentially is a SQL execution engine, and
> everything else should be judged from the perspective how well does it
> fit into that primary purpose. Therefore, let's go through your list
> itemized:[/color]

The value is simply in having a wheel around that doesn't need to be
re-invented and maintained.

No matter how much one explains these away with "isn't it just ...",
developers always seme to be reinventing these "justs". What you call
"bells and whistles" seem to be a base requirement in 90% of the projects
I've seen in the past 3 years - only the developer's don't realize the
bells are already there so they either build or buy a completely new set.

If that wasn't true, JMS, MQ Series Queuing and Workflow (oh, sorry - it's
WebSphere now), and the like would not have a reason for being.

Or are you saying - let's get back to commoditizing the SQL engine so we can
recover some of the revenue from these capabilities? Or continue stretching
project timelines to accomplish stuff that already exists? <g>

/Hans

[Jim Kennedy]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?


"Serge Rielau" <srielau@ca.ibm .com> wrote in message
news:2tm002F21a 6qfU2@uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> DB2 UDB for LUW does not have page locks.. Only row and table level[/color]

Doesn't it still have a problem with dynamic SQL such that it locks the plan
table so people who need to bind programs with the database have to wait
until the transaction competes. Thus if one issues dynamic SQL and doesn't
commit for several minutes it will prevent (serialize) those programmers
from binding their programs with the database.
Jim

[Noons]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

mikharakiri_nos paum@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote in message news:<8a529bb.0 410200902.53af2 4b9@posting.goo gle.com>...
[color=blue]
> I alway wondered what is the true value of those bells and whistles.[/color]

Because you reject that they can be useful?
[color=blue]
> Let's not forget that RDBMS essentially is a SQL execution engine, and[/color]

Most definitely not. That is a file system. A *database* (that is what the
"D" in RDBMS stands for) is not even necessarily a SQL execution engine:
it could be an execution engine for many other languages. And then there
is the *relational* bit attached to it: the "R". IF you don't know what that
means and what it can do *way beyond* SQL itself ever will, then there
is no point in going there. Just use it as a "SQL engine". While others laugh.
[color=blue]
> everything else should be judged from the perspective how well does it
> fit into that primary purpose. Therefore, let's go through your list
> itemized:[/color]

Your primary purpose is totally wrong. You don't need a RDBMS,
you need only a SQL engine. Obviously, you can do everything
else the database can do, yourself, and better. What can I say?

[michael newport]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Daniel,

in Ingres I wrote 4GL, in Oracle I write PL/SQL
in Ingres I wrote SQL, in Oracle I write SQL
in Ingres I ran an overnight batch from a Unix cron job, in Oracle I
schedule a dbms_job
in Ingres my results went to a database table, in Oracle my results go
to a database table
in Ingres I wrote a user parameterized report, in Oracle I write a
user parameterized report
in Ingres I ran the report with a system call, in Oracle I use Oracle
Reports server (with all its nasty bugs)

Ingres is free, Oracle is not

did I miss something ?

Regards
Michael Newport

[Serge Rielau]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

I have never heard of such a problem and if it ever existed I would
consider it a bug.
Checking....

Cheers
Serge

[Serge Rielau]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Noons wrote:
[color=blue]
> mikharakiri_nos paum@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote in message news:<8a529bb.0 410200902.53af2 4b9@posting.goo gle.com>...[color=green]
>>I alway wondered what is the true value of those bells and whistles.[/color]
> Because you reject that they can be useful?[/color]
Because often they are not useful, or priceworthy, for a given specific
application. I think a core point of this, carefully flame free, thread
so far has been that on eneeds to know ones requirements to knwo which
"bells and whistles" are needed in a specific case.[color=blue][color=green]
>>Let's not forget that RDBMS essentially is a SQL execution engine, and[/color]
> Most definitely not. That is a file system. A *database* (that is what the
> "D" in RDBMS stands for) is not even necessarily a SQL execution engine:
> it could be an execution engine for many other languages. And then there
> is the *relational* bit attached to it: the "R". IF you don't know what that
> means and what it can do *way beyond* SQL itself ever will, then there
> is no point in going there. Just use it as a "SQL engine". While others laugh.[/color]
Uhm.. while splitting hair one must be careful not to cut ones fingers.
A database is a repository. Its just sits there. Quiet and dumb.
It's that MS (management system) part that does all the work. To the
best of my knowledge neither Oracle nor IBM are in the business of
selling databases.
Now that R correlates, for all major RDBMS that I know, quite well with
SQL as it's access language. Do you know of other languages commonly
used in an RDBMS? Yes, there could be, but there aren't.
Now products have a tendency to evolve beyond the original purpose.
All major vendors support procedural extensions of some sort which are
more or less interacting with the relational engine.
And different vendors have different opinion on how many extensions to
the core should be part of that core RDBMS or stay components to be
added on.
Each his/her religion I 'spose. In the end RDBMS integrate with other
middleware and apps. Be it as the killer product or a component of one.
There is a lot of bloat going on in the market (and I'm not excluding
any vendor)
and that's where the open source products come in...
[color=blue][color=green]
>>everything else should be judged from the perspective how well does it
>>fit into that primary purpose. Therefore, let's go through your list
>>itemized:[/color]
> Your primary purpose is totally wrong. You don't need a RDBMS,
> you need only a SQL engine. Obviously, you can do everything
> else the database can do, yourself, and better. What can I say?[/color]
He may be part of a significant part of the customer base for RDBMS.
Not everyone needs a Winnebago. Some folks just want to commute to
work... Mind you that doesn't make Winnebagos bad

Cheers
Serge

[Serge Rielau]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

OK, here is the deal:
When you execute a dynamic statement which depends on table T.
DB2 will hold a usage lock on T until the end of the transaction.
So noone will be able to alter T (in a non-trivial way) until this
transaction is over.
An alternate design would be to release the lock after usage.
However in the interest of keeping the cache fast the capturing of locks
needs to be minimized. Schema evolution is considered a much rarer (more
rare??) event than cache-hits

Does that answer the comment?

Cheers
Serge

[Jim Kennedy]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?


"Serge Rielau" <srielau@ca.ibm .com> wrote in message
news:2tprmrF23g etiU1@uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> OK, here is the deal:
> When you execute a dynamic statement which depends on table T.
> DB2 will hold a usage lock on T until the end of the transaction.
> So noone will be able to alter T (in a non-trivial way) until this
> transaction is over.
> An alternate design would be to release the lock after usage.
> However in the interest of keeping the cache fast the capturing of locks
> needs to be minimized. Schema evolution is considered a much rarer (more
> rare??) event than cache-hits
>
> Does that answer the comment?
>
> Cheers
> Serge[/color]
Here was the behavior that was observed. (on db2 on a mainframe)
1. Issue commit;
2. Issue a select statement (like select ... from mytable where ...)
3. People try to bind their programs and no dice.
4. Minutes pass and programmers start calling because they can't get their
work done.
5. Issue a commit (or rollback).
6. People can now bind their programs.

The explanation according to the manual was that DB2 doesn't do dynamic SQL,
it takes dynamic SQL and turns it into static SQL and then binds that static
SQL and runs it. Since a commit happens minutes later access to the plan
table is serialized. OUCH!

We observed this behavior and so had to turn the system into an autocommit
system just so we didn't turn a multi million dollar machine into the
equivalent of an based 8080 PC.

This went on for at least a couple of years and then I went onto other
companies.
Jim

[Serge Rielau]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Jim,

I can't comment on DB2 for zOS. Would be interested to know whether this
behaviour is still in existence and whether it was condidered working as
designed or a bug (e.g. a bad lock).
The behaviour you describe seems to indicate that users also wouldn't be
able to bind static apps concurrently... ..

Cheers
Serge

[Noons]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Serge Rielau <srielau@ca.ibm .com> wrote in message news:<2tpoheF22 1ps9U1@uni-berlin.de>...
[color=blue]
> Now that R correlates, for all major RDBMS that I know, quite well with
> SQL as it's access language. Do you know of other languages commonly
> used in an RDBMS? Yes, there could be, but there aren't.[/color]

Yes I do, and yes there are. Quel from Ingres is one of them.
They still make it available, last time I looked. Sure it's not
much used and anyone using anything other than SQL must have rocks
on their head or doing research. That's not the point, though.
The point is that relational != SQL. Period. A DML is not a
data storage theory.
[color=blue]
> There is a lot of bloat going on in the market (and I'm not excluding
> any vendor)
> and that's where the open source products come in...[/color]

Absolutely. But let's bot in the name of marketing subvert
theory, OK?


[color=blue]
> Not everyone needs a Winnebago. Some folks just want to commute to
> work... Mind you that doesn't make Winnebagos bad
>[/color]

They better all have at least four wheels...