Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

[DA Morgan]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Serge Rielau wrote:
[color=blue]
> *bigfatgrin*I see we agree :-)[/color]

Can I persuade you to leave just enough of the original post that it is
possible to maintain contex?

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

[michael newport]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

the true answer is to expand the question,

Ingres does everything that DB2 / Oracle can, and Ingres is cheaper than both.

It is free.

You get more bang for your buck with Ingres.


Regards
Michael Newport

[JS]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

michaelnewport@ yahoo.com (michael newport) wrote in message news:<63b202d.0 410240141.1094b e3d@posting.goo gle.com>...[color=blue]
> the true answer is to expand the question,
>
> Ingres does everything that DB2 / Oracle can, and Ingres is cheaper than both.
>
> It is free.
>
> You get more bang for your buck with Ingres.
>
>
> Regards
> Michael Newport[/color]

well so is mysql, lets stick to 'mainstream' dbs that actually have a
measureable market share of some significance

[Jim Kennedy]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?


"michael newport" <michaelnewport @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63b202d.04 10240141.1094be 3d@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> the true answer is to expand the question,
>
> Ingres does everything that DB2 / Oracle can, and Ingres is cheaper than[/color]
both.[color=blue]
>
> It is free.
>
> You get more bang for your buck with Ingres.
>
>
> Regards
> Michael Newport[/color]
You are full of it. Just to take a small example, where are the tpc
benchmarks?

Jim

[HansF]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

michael newport wrote:
[color=blue]
> the true answer is to expand the question,
>
> Ingres does everything that DB2 / Oracle can, and Ingres is cheaper than
> both.[/color]

SNAP OUT OF IT MAN - seems you fell into a trance 10 years ago. Life has
moved forward, and so have the RDBMS capabilities.

You seem to have come to a conclusion some time ago and are possibly now
living a life of myths and workarounds. Programmers living in the age of
mythology cost more to projects than products do!
[color=blue]
>
> It is free.[/color]

Yes, the software is free. (But not GPL ... makes one wonder why!) The
software is also somewhat hidden - http://www.ingres.com is marketing only.
you need to go http://opensource.ca.com
[color=blue]
>
> You get more bang for your buck with Ingres.
>[/color]

Sadly it's behind the times. The price is right for it's capabilties, but
the cost of compensating for this older technology can be enormous. Even
CA as much as admitted that they couldn't make money on it without a major
overhaul when they made it FOSS. Coming from CA, that's heavy!

Commonly required capabilities like ROLLUP and GROUP BY GROUPING SETS, CUBE
and common-table-expressions (aka WITH clause) make a huge difference -
unless one prefers to spend money in development and maintenance.

-------

FWIW, anyone wishing to compare SQL capabilities from a developer's point of
view might want to look at the relevant SQL language docco for each (listed
alphabetically) :

DB2:

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/db2/udb/support/manualsv8.html

Ingres:

http://opensource.ca.com/projects/ingres/documents

Oracle 9iR2:

http://www.oracle.com/pls/db92/db92.docindex?remark=homepage

--------

Now can we get back to the basic DB2 vs Oracle discussion?


/Hans

[DA Morgan]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

michael newport wrote:[color=blue]
> the true answer is to expand the question,
>
> Ingres does everything that DB2 / Oracle can,[/color]

Which is, without a question, an outright lie.
If you can't dwell within the land of the truthful
try saying nothing at all.

and Ingres is cheaper than both.

Also less expensive.
[color=blue]
> It is free.[/color]

So is trash but I don't go dumpster diving. Why
this crazed religious fervor? A desire to honor
those that died with valor?
[color=blue]
> You get more bang for your buck with Ingres.[/color]

A claim not supported by contact with reality.
What you get is a product that was so unimpressive
to the marketplace that its owner couldn't sell it
to anyone so they decided to just off-load it.
[color=blue]
> Regards
> Michael Newport[/color]

But Michael, by all means, keep banging away at Ingres.
With any luck at all you'll last as long as those of my
colleagues that stayed with RPG II and ALGOL.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[michael newport]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

why should we ?

unless of course you are willing to blindly shell out your companies money.

[michael newport]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

http://tpc.org/information/other/articles/TopTen.asp

The performance of databases is one issue, pricing is another. (Ingres
is FREE)

TPC results should not be used as a substitute for benchmarking of
one's own application if performance is a critical decision criteria


Michael

[michael newport]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

> SNAP OUT OF IT MAN - seems you fell into a trance 10 years ago. Life has[color=blue]
> moved forward, and so have the RDBMS capabilities.[/color]

Which is why someone at CA (finally) made Ingres OpenSource.
An ex-Oracle person if my info. is correct.
How many more RDBMS capabilities do you need to do your job ?
[color=blue]
> You seem to have come to a conclusion some time ago and are possibly now
> living a life of myths and workarounds. Programmers living in the age of
> mythology cost more to projects than products do![/color]

I am now (1 year) working with Oracle and my work involves doing the
same stuff that I did with Ingres (see previous post).

So why buy Oracle when Ingres is free.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > It is free.[/color]
>
> Yes, the software is free. (But not GPL ... makes one wonder why!) The
> software is also somewhat hidden - http://www.ingres.com is marketing only.
> you need to go http://opensource.ca.com
>[color=green]
> >
> > You get more bang for your buck with Ingres.
> >[/color]
>
> Sadly it's behind the times. The price is right for it's capabilties, but
> the cost of compensating for this older technology can be enormous. Even
> CA as much as admitted that they couldn't make money on it without a major
> overhaul when they made it FOSS. Coming from CA, that's heavy![/color]

Behind the times means what exactly ?
What compensation costs are you talking about exactly ?

The cost of buying Oracle IS enormous.
Ingres is FREE, and v3 is just being released.

[color=blue]
>
> Commonly required capabilities like ROLLUP and GROUP BY GROUPING SETS, CUBE
> and common-table-expressions (aka WITH clause) make a huge difference -
> unless one prefers to spend money in development and maintenance.[/color]

development and maintenance costs are human factors.[color=blue]
>
> -------
>
> FWIW, anyone wishing to compare SQL capabilities from a developer's point of
> view might want to look at the relevant SQL language docco for each (listed
> alphabetically) :
>
> DB2:
> http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data...manualsv8.html
>
> Ingres:
> http://opensource.ca.com/projects/ingres/documents
>
> Oracle 9iR2:
> http://www.oracle.com/pls/db92/db92....emark=homepage
>
> --------
>
> Now can we get back to the basic DB2 vs Oracle discussion?[/color]

doubtful.

[michael newport]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

Daniel,

what do you do at the University of Washington ?

nothing to do with education ?

Regards
Michael Newport

[HansF]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

michael newport wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> development and maintenance costs are human factors.[/color]

Yes! And they are onging.

To reduce the total cost of a project over several years,

Reduce development and maintenance costs,
By writing and maintaining LESS code,
By having more capability in the vendor's product,
By using that capability.

/Hans

[HansF]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

michael newport wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> So why buy Oracle when Ingres is free.[/color]

If you use Oracle like you use Ingres, you are absolutely correct.

The implication is that accounting and shareholders or stakeholders (or
wife) have not had a review of where time and money are going. Which is
more toward keeping old technology alive than improving the business.

Which makes me worry about management and the viability of the organization.
(Suggest you keep your resume polished ...)

Simplest example I can think of - Catalog the CD library & make it
accessible using browsers:

- Get Oracle DB (list price personal = US$400)
- Install DB (1 hour, 'cause I read the instructions)
- Install free HTML DB from companion disk (1 hour)
- use HTML DB to create tables, Web pages (1 hour)
for a tutorial, see http://www.oracle.com/technology/obe/index.html

Steps in Ingres? Unless something sigificant has changed in the past 7
years (last time I looked at it seriously) I suspect it takes a few
additional pieces of software, including PERL ('cause we want to stay
free), and a few additional hours.

Of course, you _could_ use Oracle the same way as Ingres and code the
solution in PERL or otherwise. But my wife prefers I send time with her
instead of the computer, and these days I prefer to listen to the CDs than
to code the catalog. (I listened when they said 'get a life' <g>)


/Hans

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.databases. oracle.server.]
On 2004-10-20, Hans Forbrich <news.hans@telu s.net> wrote:[color=blue]
> Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Hans Forbrich <news.hans@telu s.net> wrote in message
>> news:<h3Scd.182 05$cr4.15935@ed tnps84>...[color=darkred]
>>> ...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.[/color]

No, it just sounds like suitable products need to be selected for
each of these tasks rather than just taking an Microsoft Office approach
to architecting the system.
[color=blue]
>
> 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.[/color]

These products have a reason for being because each product represents
a specialization in it's own right. If given the choice between a specialist
product such as MQ over some element of Oracle bundleware, I would be inclined
to go for the IBM product simply because I know that I can count on it to be
a discrete component that isn't going to be unecessarily tied to another
Oracle product.
[color=blue]
>
> 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>[/color]


--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.

[DA Morgan]

Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

michael newport wrote:[color=blue]
> http://tpc.org/information/other/articles/TopTen.asp
>
> The performance of databases is one issue, pricing is another. (Ingres
> is FREE)
>
> TPC results should not be used as a substitute for benchmarking of
> one's own application if performance is a critical decision criteria
>
>
> Michael[/color]

And MySQL is the same price and far better with respect to performance,
scalability, and job potential.

Today, October 25th at http://www.dice.com
Oracle 7,926 jobs
Access 7,198 jobs
DB2 1,785 jobs
Sybase 1,389 jobs
COBOL 914 jobs
Informix 272 jobs
MySQL 247 jobs
FoxPro 58 jobs
PostgreSQL 31 jobs
Ingres 18 jobs
Paradox 10 jobs
dBASE 10 jobs
Advanced Rev. 3 jobs

So there you go ... a product so valuable that in the entire
U.S. there are almost twice as many jobs available as for those
whose expertise is in dBASE. Less than 2% of the job market of COBOL.
And fewer jobs offerings than the other "free" products. Where can I
sign up?

Even when it is free Ingres isn't worth anything.
--
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?

michael newport wrote:
[color=blue]
> I am now (1 year) working with Oracle and my work involves doing the
> same stuff that I did with Ingres (see previous post).[/color]

That's not the fault of the product. That direct and proximate
responsibility falls on you for being a dinosaur. How much code have
you implemented with bulk binding? How much with the model clause?
How much with analytic functions? How many materialized views with
refresh logs?

Why not just admit that you have reached the point in your life
where you want technology to stop and let you keep doing what you
did in neolithic times.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)