Re: Oracle vs. Informix

Though I am not a DB guru, here is my opinion as a developper (and a little administration).

1. Yes, it is easier with Informix to have many databases in the same server; although you can store unrelated tables in the same Oracle database, if the needs for tuning (db_block_size...) are not different. You backup tablespaces independently.
2. Tuning is as hard with Informix as it is with Oracle. You just have less documentation to read. Paralellizing queries is possible in Oracle with Parallel Query Option (PQO).
3. Why lock an entire page when you can lock a single row? Ok, the number of locks can grow significantly. Just add RAM.
4. Oracle is more friendly with the developper. The C precompiler is way smarter (you don't have to declare sql variables in special blocks). PL/SQL is more powerfull than Informix procedural (?) SQL.
5. regarding performance, I really don't know; some people say Informix is faster, others say Oracle is faster. I didn't have a way to make my personnal opinion (yet; I actually am relatively new to Oracle). The only feeling that is shared among all the people I know how had a chance to use both is that Informix is more friendly to the dba.

Vincent.

Vladik <reason_at_shadow.net> a écrit dans le message : rra2fmo9krl84_at_corp.supernews.com...
> I think that Informix architecture is more elegant, more thought of,
> more like well-designed from ground up compared to Oracle.
> But this is just my personal view. And I am just starting to understand
> more about Oracle -- most of my experience in db tuning/troubleshooting
> was with Informix.
>
> a) I think Informix is a lot easier to maintain especially for
organizations
> where people use many Database instances (like development shops).
> It is a lot lighter on resources. For example if I have 10 databases --
> I do not need 10 separate database instances with their own data files,
> index files, temp files -- I rather allocate those spaces for a
> database server -- and all the databases on that database server
> can use the same db space same index same rollback. The same
> goes about memory allocation.
> So if out of those 10 databases only 4 are used actively, the space/memory
> resource is not wasted by the database server -- it is just being used as
> needed.
> In oracle, as I understand, if the other 6 databases are not used
actively,
> no one can use their data file space or index space, etc. So a DBA has
> to constantly be figuring out what DBs are not used and reduce the
resource
> allocation for them.
> We had to purchase more servers when we migrated from Informix to Oracle,
> just because Oracle asked for a lot more when it comes down to maintaining
> multiple databases (we have about 30 to 50).
>
> b) If you just look at the number of configuration switches for
Performance
> tuning -- Informix has a lot less. But the concepts behind those switches
> are very powerful, that is why I think that Informix is architecturally
more
> elegant and well thought off. For example, one of the most important
> things for OLTP applications is to be able to distribute the
databaseaccess
> across as many CPUs as possible and as many disk spindles as possible
> to achieve concurrency on the database server side. Well, Informix has
> an notion of Virtual CPUs and Virtual IO CPUs . You can attach (ping)
> a virtual CPU to a physical CPU of your DB server, and depending
> on I/O requirements you can configure number of I/O CPus.
> This virtual CPU concept allows (again in my view) to easier monitor
> performance of the server, and figure out load balancing issues
> (you can see what each virtual CPU is doing).
> Oracle on the other hand, has myriad switches per DB instance, per server,
> etc.
>
> d) Informix supports page locking, row locking, table locking concepts
> on per table level. It also supports the ability for locks to timeout in
> a given interval -- and this is configurable per each individual database
> connection! For our OLTP application it was very important as we,
> from the application, could identify what transaction take longer then
> needed because of lock waiting and do something about it.
>
> e) As far as stored procedures go -- I do not understand what
> you mean by one line at a time. Stored procedures are compiled
> by the database engine and cached the first time they are executed.
> And never recompiled again (until you explicitly ask for it). They are
> fast. In fact, once they are executed the first time -- you will not
> see the stored procedure text anymore in your SQL EXPLAIN --
> that is because Informix optimizer knows they are compiled
> and just calls the stored proc in binary form.
>
> d) even earlier version of Informix supported table partitioning
> and by now all the bugs are hopefully out of the system (I understand
> that table partitioning support has been available in Oracle 8).
>
>
> Oracle has more books written about it, I guess, a lot better marketing,
> and has more money to spend in investing in interesting technologies like
> XML. Also, they now have a few former Informix folks working for them.
>
> Vladislav,
> Just my biased opinions.
>
>
> Chris Moehring <chris.moehring_at_txucom.com> wrote in message
> news:37B42612.292BB35B_at_txucom.com...
> > I am considering purchasing Informix's IDS rather than Oracle's 8.
> >
> > I have heard that
> > 1) Informix was faster than Oracle but much harder to maintain.
> > 2) Harder to get support for Informix. People don't want to mess with
> > it.
> > 3) Stored procedures have to be done one line at a time with
> > Informix....very
> > time consuming.
> >
> > I am please with the speed but the last thing that we need right now is
> > server/software taking up our time to maintain.
> >
> > Can anyone address the validity of these statements?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tue Aug 17 1999 - 15:59:46 CDT