Re: SQL Server, Oracle or Informix

<snip>
>
> >Spatial (40%) (This was the potential killer feature that Daniel's
 GIS
> >system might need)
> What for? Relational tables are inherently super for GIS stuff anyway,
> why pay for something that is really not needed?
>

Nuno,

     What makes you say that? I wish it were so, but my experience suggests otherwise.

     4 to 5 years ago (i.e. when Spatial was still in its infancy), in a previous job, I wrote a purely relational PIP (point-in-polygon) package for a land and property application. It was pretty simple (used UK OSGRs i.e. basically (X,Y) coordinates), & I don't think I made that bad a job of it (the company I wrote it for is still using it now), but sheeeeit was it clunky.....and the less said about scalability the better. The stuff now available in Spatial (object types, extensible indexes et al) would have made it much easier to produce something more generic and scalable.

    IMHO, if you want to do serious GIS within Oracle, you definitely need Spatial. Given the number of other products which Oracle have stopped trying to charge for in the last year or so, I'm amazed thay're still trying to tack on the extra 40% for what is still basically a "niche" product. Maybe, given the simplified product range promised in "9i"/8.2, things will change soon? Not that I'm holding my breath....

Mike S

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/ Received on Mon Feb 05 2001 - 06:37:08 CST