Re: DB2 UDB or Oracle (who has better support)

From: Gert van der Kooij <gert_at_invalid.nl>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:01:18 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.1c91b5a6b713e5949897f0@news.xs4all.nl>

In article <1109882435.448360_at_yasure>, DA Morgan 
(damorgan_at_x.washington.edu) says...

> ak_tiredofspam_at_yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>How about the fact that DB2 has a different code base
> >
> > for different operating systems
> > ...<<
> >
> > Is that a fact?
>
> It is indeed. IBM'ers do their best to weave and bob like a boxer
> taking punches but avoid acknowleding it but it is a simple fact
> of life. DB2 is an excellent product on the mainframe. The OS/400
> implementation is a completely different code base. The UNIX is
> another, etc.
>
> A simple check of how many characters for a table name will be
> sufficient to convince almost anyone other than Serge who works
> for IBM and codes DB2. He's a nice guy but doesn't want to lose
> his job so don't ask him to cry uncle.
>

You're mixing up things. As Serge and others always said the Unix/Linux/Windows codebase is the same, only the lowest operating system layer is different. I guess this is the same for Oracle. Also there are some extenders which are not available on all operating systems.

Differences arise when talking about DB2/zOS and DB2/AS400, these are both different codebases and have different administration tools, tuning options etc.

The table name length difference is a difference between DB2/LUW and the others, not between DB2/Windows and DB2/Linux or DB2/Aix etc.

Kind regards, Gert Received on Thu Mar 03 2005 - 17:01:18 CST