Re: Ok, call me silly...

dcruncher4@xxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1213295315.502969@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, DA Morgan says...

Perhaps his was true in the 80s. Perhaps it was true in the early 90s.
But this is 2008 and the claim is downright preposterous. When you
stop drowning in the "we're so great" KoolAid and get in touch with
reality you will find that there are a number of RDBMS products that
can equal or beat Informix's performance.

And so are there number of rdbms products which can beat Oracle
in performance. Or do you think that is not possible at all?

I think there are products that can beat Oracle for storage in some
areas and some environments that will fail to do so in others. The
question on the table is not raw speed because if it is then you aren't
going to beat TimesTen with Informix unless you have divine
intervention. And, while we are on the subject of TimesTen I might point
out it will also use substantially fewer resources than Informix too.

The question must be phrased in the context of what that database is
doing. Is there a requirement for handling DICOM data? How about rule
based built-in security and encryption and data access policies? Or
perhaps we need a database that allows us to manage petabytes and also
provide real-time repair. Define your criteria because if you just say
product A is faster than product B ... I can guarantee you my school
bus will beat your Ferrari when asked to carry 60 passengers. Just as
my sailboat will get from San Francisco to Hawaii a lot faster than
your cigarette boat (you'll only lead for the first hour or two).

On my laptop (Ubuntu Linux).I see Db2 9.5 consistently beat Oracle 10g in
performance. I in fact see SQLite matching Oracle and DB2 in load speed.

From an IBM ThinkPad T43 using an untuned vanilla install of 11gR1

SQL> CREATE TABLE parent (
2 part_num NUMBER,
3 part_name VARCHAR2(15));

Table created.

SQL> CREATE TABLE child AS
2 SELECT *
3 FROM parent;

Table created.

SQL> DECLARE
2 j PLS_INTEGER := 1;
3 k parent.part_name%TYPE := 'Transducer';
4 BEGIN
5 FOR i IN 1 .. 200000
6 LOOP
7 SELECT DECODE(k, 'Transducer', 'Rectifier',
8 'Rectifier', 'Capacitor',
9 'Capacitor', 'Knob',
10 'Knob', 'Chassis',
11 'Chassis', 'Transducer')
12 INTO k
13 FROM dual;
14
15 INSERT INTO parent VALUES (j+i, k);
16 END LOOP;
17 COMMIT;
18 END;
19 /

PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.

SQL> set timing on
SQL> INSERT INTO child
2 SELECT * FROM parent;

200000 rows created.

Elapsed: 00:00:00.25
SQL> INSERT /*+ APPEND */ INTO child
2 SELECT * FROM parent;

200000 rows created.

Elapsed: 00:00:00.21
SQL>

Post your numbers on your Oracle and DB2 instances.

In a way I agree with you. These days almost all major RDBM's
are more or less same for 80% of work. There may be some specialized
work which some RDBMs do well.

If Informix is so great in 2008 you certainly can't tell that from
the list of customers that use it.

the same way apple customers do not tell that apple OS is far better
than Windows. Pls confirm.

I think the question is simpler than this:
Right this second there are 18,285 Oracle jobs at dice.com and there
are only 317 for Informix. The same results hold at monster.com and
hotjobs.com.

If a product is being used ... then people are being hired to install
it, deploy it, maintain it, develop with it.

This isn't about whether product A is faster or better than product B.
It is about the fact that the market has spoken and IBM is whispering.
Is WordPerfect better than MS Word? It is in my opinion. Is Lotus 123
better than Excel? It is in my opinion. Can I get a job teaching Lotus
or WordPerfect? Can you get a job working with them? The fact that they
are better products does not mean you won't be unemployed.

AFAIK Oracle compatibility features are being built into DB2 and SQL
Server and not into Informix. That should tell you all you need to know.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (replace x with u to respond)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ok, call me silly...
    ... And so are there number of rdbms products which can beat Oracle ... out it will also use substantially fewer resources than Informix too. ... SQL> CREATE TABLE parent ( ... SQL> CREATE TABLE child AS ...
    (comp.databases.informix)
  • Re: Ok, call me silly...
    ... out it will also use substantially fewer resources than Informix too. ... I in fact see SQLite matching Oracle and DB2 in load speed. ... SQL> CREATE TABLE child AS ...
    (comp.databases.informix)
  • Re: Running scripts within SQL
    ... Having to live in an Oracle world, just because something can be done, doesn't mean that its a good idea to do it. ... I believe you're actually talking about PL/SQL and exec'ing a shell script from a stored procedure. ... If you wanted to call a script from an adhoc sql, that would not be a good idea. ... Informix on Linux ...
    (comp.databases.informix)
  • Re: Logging of DBA activity for SOX
    ... I am not an Oracle DBA, but have been challenged with implementing a ... we have similar challenges with Informix and SQL! ... Consider reposting this in the appropriate forum if Oracle is ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: Parent / Child Query
    ... standard SQL, where one can use a recursive call in SQL statements called ... Also an addition has been made to SQL '99 that is similar to the Oracle ... > becoming a parent to itself is well taken. ... and programmatically populate a temp table with all the ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)