Re: Which RDMS is best?

On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:46:57 GMT, markp7832_at_my-deja.com wrote:

>Oracle supports just about every item on the original note. After all
>why else would it be the number one commercial rdbms on the market?

Personally, I'd rather these rhetorical questions not be brought up. After all, you look silly talking about "#1 commercial rdbms" when talking about Linux: there haven't been commercial rdbms on Linux for long enough to establish a leader. Linux is a new market, and Oracle would best be aware of that. It isn't the Sequent market. It isn't the Sun market. (Heck, Sun and Sequent aren't really the same market as each other!)

That said, it's interesting how you say "just about every item" - what items does it not support?

>And I do not understand what one poster was talking about when he said
>Oracle does not support joins well. We do joins all over the place and
>most of the time Oracle handles them well. Sometimes you have to tune

And what is "most of the time"? Perhaps you should invest in a product dedicated to doing joins ... (Data Joiner is the only one I know of, but there may be others.)

>More importantly Oracle supports many different versions of UNIX and is
>also available under MVS, VMS, and NT should you ever want or need to
>migrate your database to a different platform. I am not sure how
>stable or robust the Linux port is compared to the others, but I have
>had good luck with Oracle on Sequent, Sun, and VMS Alpha as far as
>stability goes.

Just as a comparison - I have two machines at home that I'd like to play with db's on. One runs OS/2 (Warp 4 or WSeB, depending on which I boot), the other runs Redhat Linux 6.1. What's the most powerful (i.e., most expensive :->) Oracle products that I could get that would allow me to run on either of these platforms? At this point, I haven't made up my mind which of the two machines to run as a client and which as a server, and would rather it not be forced upon me by the db vendor. Received on Fri Jan 28 2000 - 00:00:00 CST