Re: feature & performance comparison

Niall,

You're post makes a lot of sense and I completely agree with it. It endorses a concept that I have been trying to encourage for years. Feature/function comparisons are only a picture of a point in time. Things could change (in today's world) in a few months. Whomever is is the lead in a benchmark also changes (sometimes just as quickly). In both cases, the thing that is missing is that the potential customer must look at the requirement and the application that is driving the need. How well does the database address the need? Of course, one must also consider the market "presence" and financial health of the vendor ... will that vendor still be there 5 or 10 years from now and will they still be supporting and enhancing that dmbs? To simply go out and seek comparison information will only prove so much (and will sometimes touch off emotions and flame wars). To go out and seek comparison information based on the technical requirements created by the business need ensures that you will obtain useful information and make a comparison that has the best interests of your users and business in mind.

Larry

Niall Litchfield wrote:

> "Robert Dean" <noemail_at_hatespam.spam> wrote in message
> news:3B210F90.75CE07_at_hatespam.spam...
> > This is in the same way that Java was supposed to kill off VB, C++,
> > COBOL, and everything else under the fiery orb at the focus of our
> > solar system, right?
> >
> >
> > Niall Litchfield wrote:
> > >
> > > but c# will kill off java <vvbg>
> Let me put my post another way
>
> Macs are better than PC's
> Unix is better than Windows
> Assembler is better than C
> The future is .net
> The future is the network appliance
> All businesses will be e-business
> EMC is better than veritas
> compaq is better than dell
> black is better than white
> venus is better than mars.
>
> or yet a third way
>
> vvbg = very very big grin.
>
> <rant>
>
> one of the things that really really pisses me off is the tendency of
> techies to attach ourselves religiously to operating
> systems,databases,programming languages,hardware platforms. Our sole role if
> we are doing our jobs is to deliver the performance that the business
> requires from the particular platform that we look after. This means "A tool
> is assessed against the job for which it will be put to use, and not on a
> feature comparison with its competitors". {Niall's first law} and also
> "every tool has its place, so don't slag it off in case you need support for
> it sometime" {Niall's corollary}.
>
> </rant>
>
> therefore as I said in my somewhat more serious post (and to return somewhat
> surprisingly to the topic) . assess both db2 and oracle against the task in
> hand.
>
> --
>
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
  Received on Sat Jun 09 2001 - 08:54:51 CDT