Re: How to determine database market share?

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1131201177.704409.98050_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Now show me the breakdown of how much of the IBM business is from
> non-RDMBS tools (that do not speak SQL as their first language) and how
> much from RDBMS's. And are you thinking that more or less than 50% of
> IBM's slice is DB2? I would really like to know that.
>
> Where does mySQL fall in here when it doesn't take "market" the same
> way (depending on def, it isn't in this market, but if you are looking
> at the dbms market in order to work in a related area, you might want
> to know how much database activity is tied to it).
>
> The questions I have about how much of the database market uses open
> source and how much uses non-SQL-based approaches are not answered by a
> chart like this nor by the suggestion of looking at position openings.
> Perhaps it does answer the question for the OP, however. --dawn
>

It is true that IBM still has revenue from IMS (on the mainframe), which is not relational. I don't know of any other databases from IBM that are not relational (but someone may surprise me). I would find it hard to believe that IMS revenue is more than 10% of IBM's database total, and probably a lot less than that.

Meanwhile most relational databases, particularly Oracle, become less relational with each release. Codd defined relational as the extent to which the user of the data (via DML) is isolated from the way the data is physically stored. Some of these things are to improve performance (like hints in Oracle) or to improve concurrency (WITH UR in DB2) but they are decidedly not relational in nature. Received on Sat Nov 05 2005 - 16:35:14 CET