DB2 an Oracle killer

Of course, the whole pricing list thing is a joke. I was in a meeting with two guys from Oracle on thursday who claimed they could price Oracle9iAS competatively against IIS. Since IIS is part of the operating system it's free if you are already using Windows 2000. Oracle list Oracle9iAS as $20,000, so that's a pretty big discount they were offering us!

As long as Oracle keep listing their prices then changing them they are doomed to failure. Larry claimed this sort of tactic had been stopped, yet it is clearly still evident in the UK! Why not reduce the prices to the match SQL Server and stop giving massive discounts to some customers.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally posted by julian

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pando
I wont give Sun Microsystems more than 10 years life if they dont change their actualy policy

They will be killed by Intel and Linux (mostly Intel)

---

What do you find wrong in Sun's policy?

---

They will be the only company using SPARC/RiSC architecture, in other words while others follow a road theyare the only one who´s walking alone. I am not the only one who states this even Sun´s own pre-sales engineers and support are afraid

Just have a look at Linux, now Sun starts to make workstations to run them now and a year back or so they would not do it because they know they wont survive the competition

That's the problem with Oracle is their pricing. In long terms, they are just destroying themselves. There's no way, they can price their solutions and software just like Microsoft.

In the next few years, oracle on sun will be still going strong. HP Ux for Oracle, i dun think so. Ever since,compaq have bought over HP, now they are prompting more on their compaq server instead of HP. I not sure, how other countries fare. But, in singapore, and information, i gather from my frenz. The unix market belong to Sun , follow by HP.

Database base wise, only Oracle and MS SQL Server are dominating the market in singapore. But, i belive MS SQL will be going strong in the next few years. Imaging now, SQL have gone from 32 bit to 64 bit. Intel will be having the Itantium processor, which is as good as unix server processor. Coz, intel have bought over alpha processor, and using their design to design their processor.

But, according my information, some of the bio data or so called bio informatics data are actually using Oracle as database running on unix . Same go along with some of the super computer are also using Oracle. If MS SQL want to dominate the market just like Oracle, they have to do better.

Hard to say, big companies are actually migrating their data from Oracle to SQL. It's all up to personnel. As long, they have the requirements and need in all areas of database aspect. And, it will benefit them. They can carry on with it. Same go along with the It industry keep changing, in order to stay put, we have to keep upgrading our skills and knowledge. To be well verse more that one database, certainly will put you ahead of the others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by grjohnson
Hey Nick (and other DB2 administrator),

Have you done anything with XML in DB2?

ie.. stored data in XML format and queried it?

Cheers,

---

Hi Greg, still churning at the "She'll Be Right Mate" consultancy?

Queried XML format???, I can't even spell it!

My days with DB2 were limited to OS390 so not much call for it.

My understanding is that DB2 uses "Side Tables" to index specific portions of an XML doc or to store the Xpath whereas 9i offers a greater level of granularity. That is the limit to my knowledge with looking up Book Manager.

So if that was a fine lesson in sucking eggs, many appologies.

Mind you, kind of illustrates my feelings about Oracle and DB2. The latter is the basic model which you add to, whist the former has all the whistles and bells but at a price.

All the best

Nick

MS-Access Rules! There are more MS-Access databases in the world than Oracle, MS-SQL, Sybase, DB/2, and MySQL COMBINED!

"MS-Access Rules!...."


Oh Please. I dare you to set up a terabyte Data Warehouse with MS Access. MSSQL 2000 has a lot of improvement over the previous version but it is still not scaleable like Oracle.

Don't get me started on .dbf files...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by saturn
"MS-Access Rules!...."


Oh Please. I dare you to set up a terabyte Data Warehouse with MS Access. MSSQL 2000 has a lot of improvement over the previous version but it is still not scaleable like Oracle.

---

When was the last time you had a Windoz server up for more than 3 days without rebooting?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by saturn
"MS-Access Rules!...."


Oh Please. I dare you to set up a terabyte Data Warehouse with MS Access. MSSQL 2000 has a lot of improvement over the previous version but it is still not scaleable like Oracle.

---

I dare you to explain to your client why they need to spend $4000 for database software when they are storing less than 20M of data...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ngdh


Hi Greg, still churning at the "She'll Be Right Mate" consultancy?

---

I'm not sure whether to be offended or not... I'm thinking not. Hmmm, yes, still getting around. :)

And it's not "She'll Be Right Mate" consultancy?

It's "Crikey Mate, She'll be right...Struth!" LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ngdh


My understanding is that DB2 uses "Side Tables" to index specific portions of an XML doc or to store the Xpath whereas 9i offers a greater level of granularity. That is the limit to my knowledge with looking up Book Manager.

---

Apoligies to other non-xml reader to this thread...my reply is simple XML related..

Oracle still has a problem of getting away from teh Relation Model when storing XML data. Oracle still likes to have the data normalised. One of the advantages of XML styled data is that, effectively if you want to, you could store the whole database in a single record. i.e, a single LIBRARY record could contain every book in the library. Unfortunalty, Oracle still insists that you break this down, into two tables, i.e a Library and Books table with a foreign key reference.

To bring this down another level...

If I have a database table in Oracle9.2 called BOOKS.. and store the following record.

INSERT INTO books VALUES ('bk113',XMLType('Galos,
MikeJohnson, GregComputer19.95200204
16Oracle XMLType is explored in
depth'),1);

ie. a book with two authors.

Then I want to get out all the DISTINCT authors, I'd perform the following query...

SQL> SELECT distinct(b.data.extract('/book/author/text()').getStringVal())
"Author" FROM books b;

Author
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Corets, Eva
Galos, Mike
Galos, MikeJohnson, Greg
Gambardella, Matthew
Knorr, Stefan
Kress, Peter
O''Brien, Tim
Ralls, Kim
Randall, Cynthia
Thurman, Paula

See.. how Oracle still can't differential between TAGS ans RECORDS..That's the issue. The authors should be displayed individually as tags, Oracle see them as a single RECORD not individual TAGS. To get around this, you'd have to extract the author tags and store them in an AUTHORS table with a foreign key reference back to the book. This is the only way to get a distinct selection.

[Edited by grjohnson on 10-01-2002 at 07:17 AM]