robert.sundstrom_at_upright.se (Robert Sundstr?) wrote in message news:<aam9lg$b6d$1_at_yggdrasil.utfors.se>...
> In article <3CCD6A14.6090206_at_netcape.net>, KPNG <japang_at_netcape.net> wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >
> >I'm comparing these two brand database server for our new trading system.
> >
> >I know that both of them are famous and occupied large market share. But
> >can some tell me, or has link to the research document which can compare
> >these two products objectively.
>
> I believe the most important design choice/decision when implementing your
> system is to make sure your trading system will only use standardized features
> provided by both vendors, and possibly other brands as well. If you are able
> to do this, the choice of database vendor will be less important for your
> business. Since it will be easier for you to migrate to another brand sometime
> in he future, you will be less dependent on those suit-and-tie-equipped sales
> drones who in a few years inevitably will try to have you pay higher support
> fees.
>
> -
> Robert Sundström, Mimer SQL Development
> Upright Database Technology AB, http://www.mimer.com
Sorry, don't agree here at all. By limiting yourself to ANSI SQL
(which is in effect what you are saying) you code to the most common
denominator and invalidate any performance features you may have
purchased with the system you buy. Essentially you are limiting
yourself to the most limited platform, which to me is not a good idea.
Buy a product for its features, use the features and optimize
performance. Using your argument we would all be using ISAM...
Received on Mon May 06 2002 - 10:46:41 CDT
