Re: Where can I get a complete list of all SQL Hints?

"TM" <tonym101_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7b718442.0306210435.79383f04_at_posting.google.com...

> DB2 documentation is pretty extensive and I can find no such
> reference.

Probably because it is too "extensive"?

> I suspect you are misquoting as usual, or maybe quoting

What do you know of "usual"? I don't recall your presence here for a long time?

> for a different product rather than DB2 UDB For Multiplatforms, but
> who knows... maybe someone did write that.

Gee, I guess when IBM installed DB2 V7 for NT in my workstation they did install what? The AS400 version? Oh no, hang on, that's not "common code". Must be the mainframe DB2 version then.
Which is not the same product but has a common base but is the same product historically. Except not of the same code base. Which is common code between Windows and Linux and Unix, but don't try to create too long usernames in Linux because that will make the "common code" baulk when it runs in Windows. It's all Bill's fault, of course.

Or whatever.

Do you really think that this sort of confusing, inane, imbecile and idiotic claims by IBM are doing its product a lot of good? Do you really beleive that ANYONE in this industry is gonna even remotely gobble this "same product, different code base, but common feature base of the same product" bull?

> If you expect me to take
> this claim seriously, post a link to the relevant HTML page of the DB2
> UDB For Multiplatforms "doco".
>

If you think I'm gonna waste time
chasing up doco in a IBM website...

>
> So why do you waste others' time posting ill-informed opinions here as
> though they were fact, stated without qualification or indication of
> possible uncertainty?

They are ALWAYS identified as opinions. If you know anything about this newsgroup, you'd know that by now. Are yours anything else?
As for uncertainty, I'm still waiting for you to explain why is a UDB specific option mixed up with "ANSI standard" ones in the manual, WITHOUT the slightest qualification of which is which.

>
> Apparently. Or pretending to be, so you can misrepresent them as "DB2
> hints".

Obviously it's too hard for you to understand. I'll try again, but I know it's not gonna work: IBM puts UDB-specific language features right next to others that are standard ones in their manual. Without the slightest warning that some might make one's code non-standard. That is the point.

> Stop trying to change the argument. Anyone who can be bothered to
> trace this thread back will see that you claimed FOR READ ONLY etc.
> were DB2 hints, whereas in fact they are DB2 support for standard ANSI
> SQL.
So FETCH FIRST n ROWS ONLY and OPTIMIZE FOR n ROWS are ANSI standard? And the latter is not an optimizer hint?

>
> I don't work for IBM,

Did anyone say you did? Can you read English or is it too hard?

> but do Oracle pay you to come up with the smears
> and lies you post here?

Yes, I have a captive account in Gringotts Diagon Alley where they regularly deposit their payola, didn't you know?
Talk about paranoid...

>
> Perhaps there's a conspiracy, or perhaps the DB2 forums are rather
> saner places where you get more balanced and professional opinions,
> not smears and lies about competitor products.

They are usually the haunt of very sane people who post under a variety of "names" like "Obnoxious the Clown" and others. Of course, highly credible and widely recognized industry pundits. Not to speak of the (badly) desguised IBM trolls.

> > The "ANSI clauses" are in the section of UDB dealing with
> > tuning, TOGETHER with a clause that is UNIQUE to DB2 and
> > locks people in to their code and way of doing things.
>
> Smears and lies. FOR READ ONLY and FOR FETCH ONLY are in the ANSI
> specification.

I repeat: are FETCH FIRST n ROWS ONLY
and OPTIMIZE FOR n ROWS in the ANSI standard? Why do you insist on quoting only portions? Do you really think you can get away with those tactics in this NG?

>
> Whatever. Oracle hints are obviously the best thing since sliced
> bread.

No. They are highly problematic. But you are too ignorant about why to even debate them in a proper fashion. Instead of quoting the crap about DB2, why don't you analyze why hints are a problem? It's simple, really. But you did not, you went the "marketing comparison" bull way.

They are completely harmless for portability. And they are effective where needed. Which makes them a LOT more useful than anything DB2 has.

>
> I can spot that there's little point wasting further time debating
> with a total zealot.

Good. Now, do us all a favour and go post in alt.db2.religion or something of the ilk. Nobody asked for your silly "debates" about DB2/UDB/whatever here. This is a NG about Oracle.

Debate Oracle WITHIN itself if you wish and I'll be the first to agree with you if that's the case. This bullshit "comparison" with DB2 you engage in serves no purpose
whatsoever here, is based on a lot of
marketing bull and has no technical credibility whatsoever. And nobody is interested.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam