Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1063673747.987366_at_yasure...
> Database Guy wrote:
>
> >Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:<1063490783.919594_at_yasure>...
> >
> >
> >>So no attempt was made or intended to insult you, IBM, DB2, or anything
> >>else. What was made was a staight-forward statement of fact based on my
> >>years working with DB2
> >
> >Your subjective claims ("low" number of...) were dubious, your single
> >hard claim (need for C compiler on production box), bogus.
> >
> Absolutely not. You must recompile on the production box, or should I
> add a clone of the production box.

Your development environment should contain a suitable clone of the production box -- the same hardware (but perhaps on a smaller scale), running the same versions of the operating system and DB2. In this case, you develop on the development box, and then just install the final executables and SQL language elements on the production server, when they're ready for production.

If your development environment does not have a clone of your production box, then your production environment is just a mere extension of your development environment -- a risky proposition, at best -- and will be subject to the possiblity of disastrous failure, regardless of your choice of OS or RDBMS.

--
Matt Emmerton