Re: [Q] Oracle vs. Unify 2000

In article <1994Dec8.001301.8186_at_rossinc.com>, joelga_at_rossinc.com (Joel Garry) writes:
> In article <MIKEE.94Nov29081047_at_sys8.wfc.com> mikee_at_sys8.wfc.com (Mike Eggleston) writes:
> >Does anyone have any experience with both Oracle and Unify 2000 (or
> >Unify Accell)? I would like my company to migrate from Unify Accell
> >into Oracle, but the company already has licenses for Unify 2000
> >(which I don't want to use).
> >
> But Accell is the official front end for Oracle on unix...right?
> Any comment from Oracle or Unify lurkers here? :)

Actually, (tongue-in-cheek mode here ;^) ... ACCELL/SQL is the official front-end for Oracle in Character mode, but Unify VISION is the official front-end for Oracle in Graphical modes...

> >I see a migration to Oracle in the future since the company is going
> >to take a package from a mainframe into Unix and the package uses
> >Oracle on Unix for its foundation functionality. I think we should
> >only port our other applications once and not twice (for obvious
> >reasons), but I need some real 'evidence' to substantiate my claims
> >that Oracle is better than Unify.
> >
> As far as I've seen, you'll have to come up with the evidence
> yourself. The only reference I ever saw was AOL. I seem to
> remember someone from there asking if there were any other sites
> for Accell/Oracle. Don't know what they found.
>
> One port versus two may be better, maybe not, it depends on more
> specifics than you've given. If the port is to Accell, and you
> can swap Oracle right into the back end... but I've never actually
> seen that. I wonder how they handle locking differences...

Yes, that's true. ACCELL/SQL is built such that it is database independent, and you are able to swap out U2000 for Oracle without redesigning the application.  

> >The only problem that I see with moving to Oracle is that I expect it
> >to be atleast a little slower than Unify since Oracle is a larger
> >database than Unify.
> >
>
> My own experience is all pre-2000, that was MUCH faster than Oracle -
> at the expense of integrity. Little things like instability in joins
> with over 5 where clauses, etc. Although you could let the thing
> work for months with no dba around, unlike Oracle. One place I
> consulted for didn't have backups for at least 18 months, even though
> they religiously changed tapes daily. They had a _lot_ of
> deferred maintenance, but at least they kept going.
>
> >I would really appreciate any comments and I think that the comments
> >should be posted for all to read.
> >
>
> Hope somebody says something useful here.

Mike, I would be happy to help you out and answer any other questions you might have. Please drop me e-mail or call me and we'll discuss those issues.

Dale

--
Dale Shaver, Systems Engineer, Corporate Sales         	Phone: (800)24-UNIFY
Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California              	  Fax: (916)928-6404
"Jeez O Pete !!" - me                       		Email: dxs_at_unify.com