Re: Db2, Oracle, SQL Server

Serge Rielau wrote:

> I don't kno whwat the latter means, and I have in detail talked about

> the first point. It is irrelevant whether DB2 requires all the nodes
up
> or not as long as a node can fail over similarly quick as it takes
e.g.
> RAC to evict a node (which is not free!)

Not really, Serge. Note the TPC-C detailed program description for DB2 and the SELECT statements used to pick data off the partitioned tables. And this page:
http://www.tpc.org/information/sessions/sigmod/sld014.htm

See how different the statements are from the "transparency" bit? When "partitioning" requires one to code FROM with parameters that define which partition you want to go to (because the CBO is so brain-damaged it can't figure that out for you), you got a serious problem maitaining "transparency"...

And what happens in a cluster if the partition you wanted is on the node that you just offlined? Last time I looked, RAC keeps operating blissfully smooth. I can't say the same for a SELECT statement that has as a parameter the partition you want to access...
Transparency is completely out the window ages ago, anyways.

> Yes. Only a fool claims that everything the competition has is bad by

> definition. I'm no fool - I think :-)
> Know your strengths, know your weaknesses.
> Know the same about your competitors...

Indeed. How true. Received on Fri Feb 11 2005 - 00:45:17 CST