Q: Is really Sybase so much behind than other RDBMS?

From: Savas Pavlidis <pavlidis_at_ibm.net>
Date: 1997/04/21
Message-ID: <335b16fb.8054667_at_news2.ibm.net>#1/1


We have almost settled to Sybase SQL server and replication server when some articles on usenet just make think again.

Users compare Sybase's SQL Server 11 with other rdbms, and limitations of the server and old technology striked at me. The original thread I have seen it in comp.databases.oracle newsgroup and its title was Informix vs Oracle vs Sybase (etc...)

According to replies on this thread.

  1. Sybase has only one (1) serialization level. This is very limiting, isn't it?
  2. Sybase's replication server is too cumbersome and doesnot recover easily from conflicts with tables that are updateable everywhere.
  3. Page level locking instead of row level locking. This is also a serious limitation, when everybody are able to do row-level locking.
  4. You can't prevent the use of logs for faster response (for example in a data warehouse application /EIS ).

I would like some opinions on the above, and if you have some other limitations in mind, that may be severe factors in choosing an rdbms. In my case replication is a crucial factor in choosing an rdbms, and users that have used replication server may contribute their opinions (and problems) here. Also how does it compare to Oracle's replication capability?

Thanks in advance for all who take
the time to reply. Please reply also by
e-mail, due to problems we have (constantly unsolved in IBM, so I will not miss it.

Savas Pavlidis

pavlidis_at_ibm.net Received on Mon Apr 21 1997 - 00:00:00 CEST

Original text of this message