Re: Oracle and PICK

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:eNadnRec6pMBMhzdRVn-jw_at_comcast.com...
> > in my experience, at times the relational model has been more
appropriate
> > and held a lower TCO than the MV (MultiValue or "Pick") model. In most
> obviously have their
> > place and, when utilized to the advantages and strengths of each, they
> have
> > and will continue to work well and will provide a low TCO. In some
> > instances, the relational model is appropriate. The same goes for the MV
> > model.
>
> Agreed.
yup

>
> As I said, market share is far from conclusive. And it's presumptuous to
> think, without further evidence, that either the ones who chose PICK or
> the ones who chose Oracle made a mistake. It sounds like, in some cases,
> you have the further evidence. But I'd generalize, and say that, in
most
> cases, most customers know what they are doing.

hmmm, most? Large shops might have an advantage, given more coverage of the overall skillsets required to develop software applications, but I don't think I agree with your last statement here.

> I just object to the argument that Oracle's market success is irrelevant
to
> the TCO of the product.

I agree that it is not irrelevant -- I'm not sure what the relevance is, but it is a worthwhile piece of information to have. I've never seen PICK show up on any database pie charts ever during my time in IT, so I don't know what the comparisons might be.

One metric I have tried (and failed) to get from IBM is their gross dollars for their various database per software engineer they have assigned to maintain the database, or else their net return by database (DB2, IMS, Informix, UniData, UniVerse, Cloudscape, and whatever others they have). IBM is in a better position than most to see from a vendor standpoint where the PICK-based tools, the hierarchical database tool (yes, I'll admit that IMS and I had a thing going in the early 80's), and DB2, their relational model tool.

--dawn Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 02:04:15 CEST