Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:52:07 +0100
Message-ID: <bk0e3j$il8he$1_at_ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>
"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net> wrote in message
news:KZM8b.440312$uu5.78501_at_sccrnsc04...
>
> "Mark A" <ma_at_switchboard.net> wrote in message
> news:wGM8b.797$TJ.83525_at_news.uswest.net...
> > 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.
My point of raising the issue of bind was to demonstrate what a law unto
itself IBM is, using this (warning, red-rag phrase alert!) dated concept
beyond its sell-by date.
I suppose we only comment upon it unfavourably because, er, well, because we
comment upon it unfavourably. If it were some killer piece of functionality
that set DB2 UDB above the herd, we'd talk about in awesome tones ....
A personal take on the wider debate is that DB2 UDB sites are few and far