Re: Comparison of DB2 and Oracle?

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8a529bb.0410221202.68eeb0bb_at_posting.google.com...
> 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>...
> > > 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?

You probably have meant that there is much more to RDBMS than just SQL engine. One need to store tables somewhere, there should be a way to connect client somehow, etc. DBAs usually make a great deal out of those gory implementation details. In that case I have a news for you: there is not much demand in marketplace for masters of segments and extents anymore -- it's automated. The art of juggling init.ora parameters is on its way to obsolescense as well. Once again, it's SQL interface is what defines database, and would stay with us for quite a while. Received on Fri Oct 22 2004 - 22:36:16 CEST