Dear David, All

I have one more Feature which might be useful in some circumstances,
actually recently had a case where it would have been nice.
You might want to add it to the list.


PTS Feature request 175538
FEA: ABILITY TO ADD EMPTY FRAGMENT TO TABLE THAT IS NOT FRAGMENTED

Background :
If a non-fragmented table becomes full (i.e. reached 32GB limit), a DBA
will probably just want to add a new fragment using ROUND ROBIN
fragmentation.
This is possible for fragmented RR tables, but not if table is
non-fragmented.

The only method to get this done is the 'ALTER FRAGMENT ..INIT IN'
method,
which will redistribute the existing data (might take some time)

If the indices on the table are detached (default in 9.x and higher)
there is no need to restrict the ability to attach an empty fragment .


Regarding the implict PDQ feature, there is a new ONCONFIG parameter
DS_NONPDQ_QUERY_MEM , you may use it to reserve memory for non-pdq
queries.
It reserves memory for non-pdq queries , that do a SORT or GROUP BY.
Maximum is 25% of DS_TOTAL_MEMORY which is configured.
This allows ordinary queries that don't use PDQ to use more memory for
SORT operations, which iotherwise would spill out to TEMP dbspace on
disk.
However, I have no experience how this affects large OLTP systems
with lost of concurrent users. (memory usage!)
If anyone uses it and can provide feedback, I'd appreciate it.

Regards
Tilman

My most important Feature Request is:
DRDA Connectivity from
Informix-> DB2 LUW
Informix -> DB2 zOS
DB2 LUW -> Informix
DB2 zOS -> Informix

without using additional products like Infomix Gateway for DRDA, or a
Wrapper in DB2

Regards
Jürgen

I will ask but I can't see this happening. Certainly on the Informix
side.

IBM charge you for this. Why would they want to give it to you free?
OR I guess if you are large enough to afford IBM and DB2 then why can't
you afford the DRDA Gateway?

Hardly anyone uses DRDA (At least of those who turn up to UK Usergroup
Meetings!) so bundling it with the engine does not help many customers.

Do many people need this feature?

david@smooth1.co.uk schrieb:

> I will ask but I can't see this happening. Certainly on the Informix
> side.
>
> IBM charge you for this. Why would they want to give it to you free?
> OR I guess if you are large enough to afford IBM and DB2 then why can't
> you afford the DRDA Gateway?
>
> Hardly anyone uses DRDA (At least of those who turn up to UK Usergroup
> Meetings!) so bundling it with the engine does not help many customers.
>
> Do many people need this feature?

The problem with the drda-product is, that it's a very old product with
limitations, and security issues. Configuration and passsword
authorisation are far from state of the art.
DRDA is IBM's favorite database protocol and was designed to talk
between different dbms. If other vendors do not support drda it's there
issue, but between the IBM dbms familiy it should be self-evident that
all servers speak and understand drda (I think even cloudscape does).
This will produce synergies and help with the information on demand
strategy.

On 5 Jan 2006 22:58:31 -0800, "Jürgen Buck"
<juergenb@buck-consulting.de> wrote:

>david@smooth1.co.uk schrieb:
>
>> I will ask but I can't see this happening. Certainly on the Informix
>> side.
>>
>> IBM charge you for this. Why would they want to give it to you free?
>> OR I guess if you are large enough to afford IBM and DB2 then why can't
>> you afford the DRDA Gateway?
>>
>> Hardly anyone uses DRDA (At least of those who turn up to UK Usergroup
>> Meetings!) so bundling it with the engine does not help many customers.
>>
>> Do many people need this feature?
>
>The problem with the drda-product is, that it's a very old product with
>limitations, and security issues. Configuration and passsword
>authorisation are far from state of the art.
>DRDA is IBM's favorite database protocol and was designed to talk
>between different dbms. If other vendors do not support drda it's there
>issue, but between the IBM dbms familiy it should be self-evident that
>all servers speak and understand drda (I think even cloudscape does).
>This will produce synergies and help with the information on demand
>strategy.

Build on DB2 Connect, perhaps?

JWC

Jürgen Buck schrieb:

> david@smooth1.co.uk schrieb:
>
> > I will ask but I can't see this happening. Certainly on the Informix
> > side.
> >
> > IBM charge you for this. Why would they want to give it to you free?
> > OR I guess if you are large enough to afford IBM and DB2 then why can't
> > you afford the DRDA Gateway?
> >
> > Hardly anyone uses DRDA (At least of those who turn up to UK Usergroup
> > Meetings!) so bundling it with the engine does not help many customers.
> >
> > Do many people need this feature?
>
> The problem with the drda-product is, that it's a very old product with
> limitations, and security issues. Configuration and passsword
> authorisation are far from state of the art.
> DRDA is IBM's favorite database protocol and was designed to talk
> between different dbms. If other vendors do not support drda it's there
> issue, but between the IBM dbms familiy it should be self-evident that
> all servers speak and understand drda (I think even cloudscape does).
> This will produce synergies and help with the information on demand
> strategy.

DRDA is not just another feature, that's "only" interesting for
Informix dba:
If now somebody asks me: Do DB2 and Informix belong together ?
I answer: Yes both are owned by exactly the same shareholders.

With DRDA I could answer:
Yes both can talk to each other over the same protocol. So they work
perfectly together.
You can easily use the strength of both or decide for one of them.

Additionally I would rename IDS to IDS DRDA and talk about the IBM DRDA
database family.
But I fear IBM will not do this in the foreseeable future.