Andrew Hamm wrote:

> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>>>
>> I've been noticing a certain comrade-in-arms relationship with Obnoxio
>> there. Hmmm!
>
> They shared a gaol cell for a few years in Dartmore.

No, neither one of us is Australian.

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"

Obnoxio The Clown <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bl3fbf$7giod$1@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Database Guy wrote:
>
> > Obnoxio The Clown <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bl1sb2$5r2kn$1@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> >> > Could we call them "datablades"?
> >>
> >> Having used a couple, I beg to differ.
> >
> > Actually, I did once hear that datablades were one of the technologies
> > IBM most wanted from Informix. Not quite sure why since DB2 has long
> > had extenders - but it was suggested that the Informix implementation
> > was in some way architected differently (better)?
> >
> > Might have been a baseless rumour, might have been factual. Anyone
> > know more about what the difference in approach to extenders is,
> > between Informix and DB2?
>
> IMHO, the primary difference is that IDS allows you to create your own
> indexing technology, DB2 doesn't.

DB2 allows you to create index extensions on user-defined types -
quite powerful - but I don't think that's what you meant? Presumably
Informix allows you to create the entire index separate from the DBMS
yet inform the optimizer that the relevant functions implement a
useable index?

IMHO this is not a big enough difference. I got the impression this
was something more fundamental. However, it could just have been a
total red herring.


DG