Re: [Q] Oracle vs. Unify 2000

In article <1994Dec8.001301.8186_at_rossinc.com>,

>But Accell is the official front end for Oracle on unix...right?
>Any comment from Oracle or Unify lurkers here? :)

I have heard of this. Last summer, I was looking at a job in Motorola that used an Accell front-end with an Oracle back-end engine. I thought it kinda strange.

[some deleted]
>
>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.

My experience has been that it runs at the same speed, if not a little slower. We run Unify 5.0 (pre-2000) on a legacy system (3B2 1000/80 to be exact), and it runs about the same speed as Oracle does on our newer machines. We are moving to Oracle for several reasons, including: 1) better implementation of integrity rules, 2) ability of Oracle to handle outer joins without have to write special code to do this and 3) better user interfaces. I agree with your statement about not needing an honest-to-god DBA, but Oracle brought to the table for us more advantages than disadvantages. I haven't seen U2000, so I cannot speak authoritatively on that.

Just IMHO.

Paul

-- 
Paul Mickel				  Internet: mickel_at_oes.orst.edu
Systems Developer II 	  		  UUCP: ..!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstext!mickel
Teledyne Wah Chang - Albany		  Albany, OR  97321   USA 
Disclaimer: My employer never claims my opinions unless they makes a profit.