Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
Date: 9 Dec 2005 06:59:09 -0800
Message-ID: <1134140349.010976.327280_at_g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
David Cressey wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134096079.471233.306790_at_g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > David Cressey wrote:
> > > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1134055293.865826.300270_at_g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > If you were to look at the dollars spent on U2 and the dollars spent
> on
> > > > DB2, ... I'm certain there are many more features in DB2, and I
> > > > respect the product (without having used it in any production
> > > > environment) but it is SQL-based which might explain why I suspect
> > > > suspect that if we could have a database-shootout for use in software
> > > > development, U2 just might win.
> > >
> > > You're begging the question.
> > > If there's something wrong with DB2, can you identify what's wrong?
> >
> > I have not spent enough time with DB2 to do anything more than lump it
> > with other SQL DBMS tools. Sorry.
>
> Neither have I. The closest contact I had with DB2 was when I taught an Rdb
> Design and Programming
> course at a company somewhere in Ohio. This particular company was an IBM
> shop, all the way, with one little VAX, off in the corner of the computer
> room.
>
> The people I taught were accustomed to DB2, and compared Rdb, feature for
> feature, with DB2. Fair enough. The students were knowledgeable and
> credible, and the impression I got from them is that DB2 was no paltry
> competitor to Rdb.
> The course went well, by the way. I counted it as a success, because the
> cultural gap between IBM loyalists and DEC enthusiasts was enormous at the
> time.
>
> The reason I brought DB2 into the discussion was so as to factor out,
> insofar as possible, factors that are due to the vendor, when comparing U2
> to an SQL-relational product.
For that purpose, I'll just think of it as Oracle by IBM, even though I have read through some of the history of each. You didn't respond to my example of one thing SQL cannot do.
[As an aside, my only interaction with DB2 is recommending to my boss in the mid-80's that we evaluate using DB/2 instead of IMS for my next project because it was based on the Relational Model, which was grounded in solid a mathematical model. It isn't until about 5 years ago that my opinion about the RM started sliding after working in the BI area for a while.]
Cheers! --dawn Received on Fri Dec 09 2005 - 15:59:09 CET