Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73e20c6c.0410201921.44db942e_at_posting.google.com>...
> mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote in message news:<8a529bb.0410200902.53af24b9_at_posting.google.com>...
> > Let's not forget that RDBMS essentially is a SQL execution engine, and
>
> Most definitely not. That is a file system.

Are you kidding?

> A *database* (that is what the
> "D" in RDBMS stands for) is not even necessarily a SQL execution engine:
> it could be an execution engine for many other languages.

By RDBMS I have meant SQL DBMS; this is what all vendors are offering.

It is SQL interface that makes DBMS that powerful, not bells and whistles. Some procedural to SQL is warranted, because user-defined functions make SQL more powerful. Analytic exptensions arguably makes SQL even mightier. And, sorry, junk XML extensions don't make SQL more powerful.

> > everything else should be judged from the perspective how well does it
> > fit into that primary purpose. Therefore, let's go through your list
> > itemized:
>
> Your primary purpose is totally wrong. You don't need a RDBMS,
> you need only a SQL engine. Obviously, you can do everything
> else the database can do, yourself, and better. What can I say?

SQL is high level programmatic environment. Did I ever say I don't need high level programming environment and goind to reimplement it myself? Or I'm talking to DBA, who usually have no idea what programmatic environment is? Received on Fri Oct 22 2004 - 22:02:16 CEST