RE: Anyone with experience with MMOG and databases?

> About IBM DB2, which DB2 flavor do you mean? it was a brilliant move
from IBM
> marketing to call all their (mutually nonexchangeable and even
non-comparable)

       What do you mean by 'nonexchangeable and even non-comparable'?

From asktom:

What DB2 do you use on all platforms?  Answer -- none, they have different DB2's
for different architectures. (that report often seems to confuse things in
DB2/OS390 with DB2/UDB -- "features they've h ad for years", that OS390 -- UDB,
totally different code base, totally different architecture.


> database products "DB2". If you refer to the mainframe product, I
> sort of agree
> -- although even that product lacks some serious stuff.

       For example?


> The other products they
> call DB2 are inferior to Oracle.

       Can you specify why do you think it so?  I'd be grateful.

From asktom:

3) DB2 -- they have taken the "we'll build a database for every problem"
approach.  Ask them how many database products they actually have (and be
sitting down when you do this as it will take a while to go through the list). 
Even DB2 doesn't mean "DB2" -- the different flavors of DB2 are incompatible
with eachother (different features and functions).

and:

"...DB2 for having a SINGLE index type and then having to actually INDEX THE DATA EACH AND EVERY time you query it..."

or:

"...if you build an application on DB2/AIX can you put it on
DB2/Linux?  Maybe but probably not if it is a non-trivial application as their
linux port is missing tons of functionality they have on their AIX port (their
AIX port has the most features -- all other unixes have bits and pieces of the
functionality as they port the bits and pieces).  How about moving from D B2
mainframe to DB2 windows.."

1) Well, there are many ways to looks at the numbers here.  IBM is buying
marketshare (they bought informix, now when they report database marketshare
they'll lump informix -- all of the flavors, redbrick, cloudscape, -- the 5
databases they bought from them with the 4 different DB2's and IDMS and so on). 

So, as I understand Tom's comments above, each of thos different products IBM has renamed to DB2. Sure they have the same name, but different code, different features (or lack thereof), and portability sounds like a nightmare.

< BR>> SQL/PSM is *not* part of core SQL

       Yet it is important.

Why?


> and I personally think the Oracle
> proprietary PL/SQL language is much better and more efficient

       Why?

Better (and more readily available) documentation for starters.

--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
Administrador de Bases de Dados      +55 (11) 4390 5383
Toyota do Brasil Ltda              ldutra@toyota.com.br
São Bernardo do Campo, SP                        BRASIL