Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

Larry Edelstein wrote:

>Jim,
>
>I can't answer your assertion to this level of detail ... I'll leave that to
>someone else from the lab who knows more about the DB2 concurrency model. I can
>tell you that
>
>- I'm not sure that this is accurate ... "turns dynamic SQL into static SQL"?
>- even if it is, you are talking about an experience on DB2/MVS from years ago
>- there are drawbacks about Oracle's concurrency model also. I believe that the
>lock status is maintained on each data block potentially requiring disk access
>in certain cases.
>
><snipped>
>
>
Speculating about the properties of a product you are not that familiar with is like trying to jog across quick sand. While I have worked extensively with DB2 it was some years ago so I try to step gingerly when discussing specifics. But to address your statement ... Oracle doesn't lock blocks. Period. You couldn't do it if you tried. And with Oracle dropping rollback segments in favor of undo almost all of the traditional concerns are gone. I haven't seen an ORA-01555 in more than a year. And that's in development. Haven't seen one in production on a 9i server since its release.

I do think we should be careful that what started out as one thing has the potential to turn into a flame war. I'd suggest everyone remember this are tools not religions, take a deep breath, and step back form the abyss. Lets be sure to keep this discussion professional.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)