Re: Db2, Oracle, SQL Server

Just to add on the "Oracle's the best" item list: - Data Guard/Streams support DDL, while DB2's corresponding feature does only support DML
- DB2 has nothing similar to Oracle's transportable tablespace feature - DB2 partitioning mimics federated database architecture while Oracle's one is in a shared disk architecture

Questions:
- Is DB2's SQL PL any close to PL/SQL in terms of flexibility, performance, and so on?
- Does DB2 provide with any functionality similar to Oracle's external tables?
- Does DB2 provide out-of-the-box ETL type of functionality such as Oracle's combination of Streams, SQL*Loader, external tablespaces, etc? - Is ther any ASM-like feature in DB2?

I would like not to be the match, but to get answers.

Valentin Minzatu
v.a.l.e.n.t.i.n.m.i.n.z.a.t.u_at_y_a_h_o_o.c_o_m (to reply remove the "." before the "@" and the "_" after)

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1107563803.541716_at_yasure...
> Mark D Powell wrote:
>
> > I have actually worked with all three databases in question. I have
> > only installed and configured DB2 UDB. We did very little with it once
> > I got it installed and managed to reach it from a PC client.
> > Management of DB2 requires using a slew of utilities compared to
> > commands in Oracle and the GUI for DB2 at the time was written in java
> > was slow, slow, and slower still. This was OK with me since I perfer
> > to work from a command line interface and perform my tasks via scripts.
> >
> > I have a little more experience with SQL Server having verified and/or
> > setup several maintenance jobs, having performed a couple of production
> > fixes, and done a couple of installations.
> >
> > I have a decade of experience with Oracle.
> >
> > SQL Server is great for standalone setups and low object change
> > environments but as you add users and add object change activity I find
> > Oracle is a better choice. DB2 UDB is a fully functional rdbms and an
> > IBM partner has told me that IBM is working as hard as they can to make
> > it look more like Oracle (converting utilities to being SQL type
> > commands as in ALTER DATABASE, ALTER SYSTEM, etc) But as of 8.2 I find
> > Oracle is much easier for a DBA to manage.
> >
> > Oracle gives the DBA and developers greater access to what it does
> > internally than either of the other two products. Most of the time you
> > do not need to look that deeply but for critical code and application
> > features this difference might be important.
> >
> > On the down side Oracle is probably more expensive to buy than either
> > DB2 UDB or SQL Server but you can run Oracle on Linux, UNIX, VMS, and
> > OS-Z as well as Windows so you have a wide choice of hardware vendors
> > and platforms wtih Oracle. With SQL Server you are pretty much locked
> > into Windows on Intel compatiable processors. DB2 UDB runs on Windows
> > (I think), Linux, UNIX (Sun and HP only), or the mainframe so you have
> > a little more flexibility over SQL Server.
> >
> > HTH -- Mark D Powell --
>
> I was with you right up to the last paragraph. I have yet to see, with
> current 10g pricing, where Oracle costs more than either SQL Server or
> DB2. It is important to remember that Oracle Standard Edition is the
> equal of SQL Server. And while I am not as familiar with IBM's latest,
> 8.2, I suspect it too is still more the equal of Oracle Standard Edition
> than Oracle Enterprise Edition. I'd be interested in knowing what you
> think.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
Received on Sun Feb 06 2005 - 15:58:45 CST