Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

"Mark A" <ma_at_switchboard.net> wrote in message news:wGM8b.797$TJ.83525_at_news.uswest.net...
> "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net> wrote in message
> news:UjM8b.434976
> > No, this was a production environment. In the days of client server GUI
s
> > these might be "labled" ad hoc queries but in fact they were queries to
> run
> > a production system for NYNEX. The tool did not allow "binding" and
> without
> > issuing explicit commit statements after every select , insert, or
update
> > statement everyone else would get locked out of issuing queries or
binding
> > their plans for the production system. I thought mainframes were for
> > production quality code. (and so did ATT)
> > Jim
> >
> Developers should not be doing binds in a production environment.
>
>
Doesn't matter, in order for them to get the programs from one environment to another they needed to compile their code in production to bind it. (according to that group) It was a large company and we were just a small part of one group. (It was a mainframe after all.) The point being DB2 was poorly designed with respect to concurrency. No reason more than one person should not be able to bind at a time. It means that "ad hoc" or dynamic sql on DB2 means everyone serializes behind it. That is very very ugly. Sure one can administratively work around it by telling everyone not to use a feature of the database, still it is a severe limitation.

Jim Received on Sun Sep 14 2003 - 00:36:26 CEST