Serge Rielau wrote:

> Oracle implements implements partitioning and online rebuild (of what,
> indices?) in packages? *gosh* No wonder they need so many packages.

Oracle does not implement paritioning or online rebuild of indices via
packages.

> BLOB compression... Shouldn't they start with the frequently used row
> data and online and transparent please?

Oracle supports compression of frequently repeating row data. It's
reasonably online and reasonably transparent (ALTER TABLE/PARTITION command)

> Or is this needed to compress lobbyfied XML types?

No - the packaged based compression is just a straight byte compression
algorithm, typically used to compress images/vides etc stored in LOBs in
the database. I don;t think you can use it with XMLTypes.

> Queuing... Yeah that's new to IBM. I've heard that term before.. It's
> not "advanced" of course. It's just this MQ thing that everyone has...
> It'll have to do I s'pose

MQ is a chargeable product. Oracle Advanced Queuing is not (assuming you
already have a DB license). As such it's a choice for Oracle customers
that don't want to use MQ from IBM.

> Streams replication. Here's a thought. When I was in Vienna at IM Tech a
> few weeks ago learned that customers using Q-Rep on DB2 learn a new
> lesson: Replication can be network bound. Now there's a thought they
> weren't used to from competitive products.
> In short, juts because it has a different name in DB2, doesn't mean it
> doesn't exist. And just because it doesn't use fancy adjectives like
> "real", "advanced" or "native" doesn't mean it doesn't work as good or
> even better.

There are many things that Oracle has that DB2 doesn't. There has been
thread on this in this very forum this week already, around REGEX support.

>
> Cheers
> Serge

Mark Townsend wrote:
> Serge Rielau wrote:
>
>> Oracle implements implements partitioning and online rebuild (of what,
>> indices?) in packages? *gosh* No wonder they need so many packages.
>
> Oracle does not implement paritioning or online rebuild of indices via
> packages.
I know that :-) Daniel is sloppy in is allegations and claims, and he
deserves to be called upon it.

>> BLOB compression... Shouldn't they start with the frequently used row
>> data and online and transparent please?
> Oracle supports compression of frequently repeating row data. It's
> reasonably online and reasonably transparent (ALTER TABLE/PARTITION
> command)
Hah! "Reasonably"... is that trademarked? Reasonable like Oracles' XML
support? Can we quote you on this like Mr. Drake:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/...th-oracle-8722

> MQ is a chargeable product. Oracle Advanced Queuing is not (assuming you
> already have a DB license). As such it's a choice for Oracle customers
> that don't want to use MQ from IBM.
Hmm, Oracle tends to charge for features. If they don't charge that
looks suspicious to me... Either it will not be free in the future: Make
you dependent now and charge later, or the feature simply can't compete
on merit. Which one is it?

> There are many things that Oracle has that DB2 doesn't. There has been
> thread on this in this very forum this week already, around REGEX support.
I don't claim that there aren't. But there are many that are claimed
don't exist in DB2 because they have a different sticker name and there
are also some that Oracle doesn't have that DB2 has (like MDC).

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

IOD Conference
http://www.ibm.com/software/data/ond...ness/conf2006/

Serge Rielau wrote:
> Mark Townsend wrote:
> > Serge Rielau wrote:
> >
> >> Oracle implements implements partitioning and online rebuild (of what,
> >> indices?) in packages? *gosh* No wonder they need so many packages.
> >
> > Oracle does not implement paritioning or online rebuild of indices via
> > packages.
> I know that :-) Daniel is sloppy in is allegations and claims, and he
> deserves to be called upon it.
>
> >> BLOB compression... Shouldn't they start with the frequently used row
> >> data and online and transparent please?
> > Oracle supports compression of frequently repeating row data. It's
> > reasonably online and reasonably transparent (ALTER TABLE/PARTITION
> > command)
> Hah! "Reasonably"... is that trademarked? Reasonable like Oracles' XML
> support? Can we quote you on this like Mr. Drake:
> http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/...th-oracle-8722
>
> > MQ is a chargeable product. Oracle Advanced Queuing is not (assuming you
> > already have a DB license). As such it's a choice for Oracle customers
> > that don't want to use MQ from IBM.
> Hmm, Oracle tends to charge for features. If they don't charge that
> looks suspicious to me... Either it will not be free in the future: Make
> you dependent now and charge later, or the feature simply can't compete
> on merit. Which one is it?
>
> > There are many things that Oracle has that DB2 doesn't. There has been
> > thread on this in this very forum this week already, around REGEX support.
> I don't claim that there aren't. But there are many that are claimed
> don't exist in DB2 because they have a different sticker name and there
> are also some that Oracle doesn't have that DB2 has (like MDC).


>because they have a different sticker name

Absolutely.

Also, the approach is different. Coming from Oracle myself, Oracle has
a very specific style (it tries to be "correct"), DB2 just wants to get
it done the way people want it (or according to the standard).

Personally, i prefer Oracle, it just makes sense to me. But, as you
mentioned, pricing can be a huge deterent.

B.

>>> Oracle implements implements partitioning and online rebuild (of
>>> what, indices?) in packages? *gosh* No wonder they need so many
>>> packages.
>>
>> Oracle does not implement paritioning or online rebuild of indices via
>> packages.
> I know that :-) Daniel is sloppy in is allegations and claims, and he
> deserves to be called upon it.

You reasonably called him on it. But you also inreasonably responded
with allegations of your own. Pot. Kettle. Black
>

>> Oracle supports compression of frequently repeating row data. It's
>> reasonably online and reasonably transparent (ALTER TABLE/PARTITION
>> command)
> Hah! "Reasonably"... is that trademarked?

Reasonably in that it works best when the unit of data to be compressed
is reasonably large. Adding a single new row to a compressed table or
partition is not too efficient, especially if the new row introduces new
data values. Adding 1 million rows reasonably is. This tends to fit the
usage case reasonably well. Because I am a reasonable person I will give
you that the IBM algorithm looks reasonably cute.

> Reasonable like Oracles' XML support? Can we quote you on this like Mr. Drake:
>> http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/...th-oracle-8722

We looked at Viper to see what all the fuss was about. Couldn't find a
reason. The Mark Drake quote was unreasonably taken out of context.

>> MQ is a chargeable product. Oracle Advanced Queuing is not (assuming
>> you already have a DB license). As such it's a choice for Oracle
>> customers that don't want to use MQ from IBM.
> Hmm, Oracle tends to charge for features. If they don't charge that
> looks suspicious to me... Either it will not be free in the future: Make
> you dependent now and charge later, or the feature simply can't compete
> on merit. Which one is it?

Neither. Message Queuing between databases is a reasonably useful
capability, and often requested by reasonable customers. Not every one
has MQ or other third party messaging queuing systems. So we built it
into the database many years ago - even before MQ was available on Unix,
I believe. I would hazard a guess to say that Oracle's queuing is
actually more widely used than MQ. I can come up with a reasonable SWAG
of how many companies use it. How many companies use MQ ?
>
>> There are many things that Oracle has that DB2 doesn't. There has been
>> thread on this in this very forum this week already, around REGEX
>> support.
> I don't claim that there aren't. But there are many that are claimed
> don't exist in DB2 because they have a different sticker name and there
> are also some that Oracle doesn't have that DB2 has (like MDC).

What in Daniels list does exist in DB2 under a different sticker name ?
I do have a complete list of what I think Oracle has that DB2 LUWser
doesn't, it would be fun to trade notes.

Mark Townsend wrote:

>
>>>> Oracle implements implements partitioning and online rebuild (of
>>>> what, indices?) in packages? *gosh* No wonder they need so many
>>>> packages.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oracle does not implement paritioning or online rebuild of indices
>>> via packages.
>>
>> I know that :-) Daniel is sloppy in is allegations and claims, and he
>> deserves to be called upon it.
>
>
> You reasonably called him on it. But you also inreasonably responded
> with allegations of your own. Pot. Kettle. Black
>
>>
>
>>> Oracle supports compression of frequently repeating row data. It's
>>> reasonably online and reasonably transparent (ALTER TABLE/PARTITION
>>> command)
>>
>> Hah! "Reasonably"... is that trademarked?
>
>
> Reasonably in that it works best when the unit of data to be compressed
> is reasonably large. Adding a single new row to a compressed table or
> partition is not too efficient, especially if the new row introduces new
> data values. Adding 1 million rows reasonably is. This tends to fit the
> usage case reasonably well. Because I am a reasonable person I will give
> you that the IBM algorithm looks reasonably cute.
>
>> Reasonable like Oracles' XML support? Can we quote you on this like
>> Mr. Drake:
>>
>>> http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/...th-oracle-8722
>
>
>
> We looked at Viper to see what all the fuss was about. Couldn't find a
> reason. The Mark Drake quote was unreasonably taken out of context.
>
>>> MQ is a chargeable product. Oracle Advanced Queuing is not (assuming
>>> you already have a DB license). As such it's a choice for Oracle
>>> customers that don't want to use MQ from IBM.
>>
>> Hmm, Oracle tends to charge for features. If they don't charge that
>> looks suspicious to me... Either it will not be free in the future:
>> Make you dependent now and charge later, or the feature simply can't
>> compete on merit. Which one is it?
>
>
> Neither. Message Queuing between databases is a reasonably useful
> capability, and often requested by reasonable customers. Not every one
> has MQ or other third party messaging queuing systems. So we built it
> into the database many years ago - even before MQ was available on Unix,
> I believe. I would hazard a guess to say that Oracle's queuing is
> actually more widely used than MQ. I can come up with a reasonable SWAG
> of how many companies use it. How many companies use MQ ?
>
>>
>>> There are many things that Oracle has that DB2 doesn't. There has
>>> been thread on this in this very forum this week already, around
>>> REGEX support.
>>
>> I don't claim that there aren't. But there are many that are claimed
>> don't exist in DB2 because they have a different sticker name and
>> there are also some that Oracle doesn't have that DB2 has (like MDC).
>
>
> What in Daniels list does exist in DB2 under a different sticker name ?
> I do have a complete list of what I think Oracle has that DB2 LUWser
> doesn't, it would be fun to trade notes.
Mark,

This is NOT the point which you are completely missing. The original
responder called the move from Oracle to DB2 a downgrade ... not a
migration. That was without knowing anything about what the OP's app
looks like. That is a mischaracterization. The same could be said about
moving from certain DB2 configurations to Oracle. Daniel then tried to
interject his usual political agenda and tried to characterize what are
CLEARLY architectural/implementation differences as missing features
that would imply this move was a "downgrade". That's it ... case closed.

Larry Edelstein

> We're talking migration here. We're talking that you can often accomplish
> the same thing with two different databases ... using similar features or
> substitute functionality that one vendor has chosen to implement somewhat
> differently.

Perhaps you can elaborate on how these features/functionalities are
implemented in DB2.

1. Dropping a table column.
2. Creating a bitmap index.
3. Moving an index from one tablespace to another or having indexes for a
table placed in different tablespaces.
4. Changing default tablespace for an index.
5. Flashbacks
6. Loading a table into a tablespace without affecting other objects in the
same tablespace on mainframe.

> This is NOT the point which you are completely missing. The original
> responder called the move from Oracle to DB2 a downgrade ... not a
> migration. That was without knowing anything about what the OP's app looks
> like. That is a mischaracterization.

Yes, that's what I would call it. Didn't I specifically say "depending on
what 10g features are used"?

>The same could be said about moving from certain DB2 configurations to
>Oracle.

No, it could not. Most DBAs with experience with both brands will tell you
otherwise.
DB2 is a few years behind Oracle and mainframe is decades behind UNIX and
Windows.

Bob Jones wrote:
>>This is NOT the point which you are completely missing. The original
>>responder called the move from Oracle to DB2 a downgrade ... not a
>>migration. That was without knowing anything about what the OP's app looks
>>like. That is a mischaracterization.
>
>
> Yes, that's what I would call it. Didn't I specifically say "depending on
> what 10g features are used"?
>
Yes you did ... but you also said "Dude, Oracle 8i to DB2 8.2 is a
migration. Oracle 10g to DB2 8.2 is a downgrade and migration.".
Operative phrase "... IS a downgrade and migration". That's a different
claim than saying "depending on ...".
>
>>The same could be said about moving from certain DB2 configurations to
>>Oracle.
>
>
> No, it could not. Most DBAs with experience with both brands will tell you
> otherwise.

Is that why Oracle has such a significant install base in the highly
parallel shared-nothing enterprise data warehouse market?

> DB2 is a few years behind Oracle and mainframe is decades behind UNIX and
> Windows.
>
>
I'd like some of what you're smoking. Once again you're drawing what
sounds like an incontrovertible conclusion when it really depends.

Larry Edelstein

Bob Jones wrote:
>> We're talking migration here. We're talking that you can often accomplish
>> the same thing with two different databases ... using similar features or
>> substitute functionality that one vendor has chosen to implement somewhat
>> differently.
>
> Perhaps you can elaborate on how these features/functionalities are
> implemented in DB2.
>
> 1. Dropping a table column.
> 2. Creating a bitmap index.
> 3. Moving an index from one tablespace to another or having indexes for a
> table placed in different tablespaces.
> 4. Changing default tablespace for an index.
> 5. Flashbacks
> 6. Loading a table into a tablespace without affecting other objects in the
> same tablespace on mainframe.
Can't comment on point 6 (mainframe admin question). Of all the other
points the only point that is relevant for migrating an app is point 5.
Flashbacks are cute. If you want to do long term versioning stamp rows,
voila. No harm done. At least that way the app is in conrol when data is
rolled of.
But to get back to stickers. The move in DB2 is to reduce the number of
tablespaces, not to increase it. I must say that I personally don't like
this choice to the nth degree. While one can call it feature rich, one
can also call it complex. Today's users and average admins do not have
the skill it takes on average.
I fail to see the value of separating index and data table spaces in
general.

DROP COLUMN btw is in DB2 Viper. So get the best mileage out of the
deficiency while you can ;-)

DB2 customers don't ask for bitmap indexes, apparently not needed by the
masses and very likely not by the OP either.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

IOD Conference
http://www.ibm.com/software/data/ond...ness/conf2006/

>I fail to see the value of separating index and data table spaces in general.

I thought it was so the tablespaces could be a separate physical disks,
allowing for sumultaneous reads of index and data. And that this gave a
speed increase.

I'm very interested in hearing more on this topic. I know very little
about it.

B.