Re: DB2 UDB or Oracle (who has better support)

DA Morgan wrote:
> Then don't but what features of the database do you care about? What
> matters to you? How about the fact that DB2 has a different code base
> for different operating systems. Change from UNIX to Windows and you
> might as well be changing to Sybase.

Daniel,

Take it from the horses mouth:
This is nonsense and you look really silly insisting on this point. I won't argue this anymore since I sit on the source code and you most definitely do not.
There are three codebases we care about here:

• DB2 for OS400 (DB2 = OS400, Oracle is a no show for obvious reason: It would run on DB2 ;-)),
• DB2 for zOS (Deep, deep integration with Hardware support for encryption, parallel sysplex, yadayadayada)
• DB2 for Linux (iSeries, pSeries, xSeries (Intel, AMD) and zSeries), Unix and Windows (LUW)

The amount of platform specific engine code in DB2 for LUW is way below 10% and it is isolated into a layer we call OSS (operating system services).

DB2 for LUW Development is done on Linux, AIX, Windows and AFAIK even on Sun (the former Informix Arrowhead Development team). Whatever is the individual developers preference and whatever hardware is available.

DB2 for LUW ships at the same time on all Linux, Unix and Windows platforms. There is good reason why that works for DB2: One codebase. No need for a big porting team beyond deep OSS/hardware integration.

In my 7 years with IBM in the SQL Compiler development I have never had to fix a platform specific problem and I never wasted as much as a minute of my development time worrying about OS.

And before Mark T. starts screaming about extenders, the poster is talking about SAP and not some video extender....

When migrating from Unix to Windows the only thing you have to worry about from a DB2 engine perspective is endian-nes. That prevents you from a straight backup redirected restore. Tough nut to crack that is...

'nuff said
Serge

-- 
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab