| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 370.1 | No and Yes, kind of | QUILL::BOOTH | What am I?...An Oracle? | Thu Jun 22 1989 00:26 | 12 |
| First, is Oracle closer to DB2 SQL than is Rdb. That depends on the
criteria used. From what I have seen, VAX SQL is closer to DB2 than
Oracle SQL. Oracle's heavy use of both proprietary extensions and
syntax make it quite unlike DB2's SQL. Further, if it were so similar,
why would Oracle need the "blcak box" conversion software, SQL*Connect,
to talk to DB2?
Secondly, can you use ACMS/Oracle to do OLTP. If performance and time
to market are not considerations, such a product mix will execute on a
VMS system.
---- Michael Booth
|
| 370.2 | If they say it, it must be true (:-) !!! | SNO78C::BELAKHOV | Oh, my god, it's full of stars. | Thu Jun 22 1989 05:49 | 9 |
| re .0
I fully agree with Michael's comment in .1, however, I have noticed
that ORACLE claim to be able to run DB2 SQL code without modification,
i.e. they claim that ORACLE SQL is a superset of DB2 SQL.
Any comments on this?
Michael
|
| 370.3 | It's another Myth | BROKE::BOOTH | What am I?...An Oracle? | Thu Jun 22 1989 19:12 | 7 |
| Oracle runs on DB2 with the black box converter in place. What would be
good parallel is that Focus can also run on DB2, as can Nomad and
Ideal. None of these products is a great promoter of SQL, yet all can
run on DB2. What makes Oracle with SQL conversion software any
different than Focus with conversion software?
---- Michael Booth
|
| 370.4 | DB2: FOCUS or SQL*CONNECT | TRNAF1::QUAGLIA | | Thu Jun 22 1989 21:24 | 13 |
|
Hi Michael, you are surprising in these matter ...
could you explain me better how can I use FOCUS to get data from DB2?
and
in the previous replay note (370.2) BELAKhOV states that
"ORACLE claim to be able to run DB2-SQL code without
modification". If this is true is a obvious advantage for
the customer.
Again thanks from LQ
|
| 370.5 | And Again | QUILL::BOOTH | What am I?...An Oracle? | Thu Jun 22 1989 23:14 | 7 |
| Focus can interact with DB2 as many IBM-based products can.
As far as Oracle DB2 SQL working on Oracle, sure it will work...if it
first gets translated to Oracle SQL. One would expect that such
conversion would further slow the process.
---- Michael Booth
|
| 370.6 | Yes, but... | DLOACT::NARDI | Phil Nardi, TP Consultant, 483-4474 | Fri Jun 23 1989 02:26 | 37 |
|
Yes, Oracle can run under ACMS, but for various reasons, there are only
a handful of known ACMS/Oracle installations in the world. The two
products work but just don't seem to "mesh" together cleanly.
Contact Gail Ferreira (MVPS::) for reference sites.
A customer may have standardized on Oracle years before Rdb V3 came
out. Now they realize that SQL*FORMS is not real efficient for many
interactive users and perhaps want the efficiencies of ACMS/DECforms.
Issues you'll have to point out to any prospective ACMS/Oracle
customer are:
o Oracle is not integrated with Digital's CASE tools
o Oracle precompilers cannot extract definitions from VAX CDD
so developers have to maintain some definitions in at least
3 separate places:
- ACMS must have the record definitions in the CDD
- Oracle has its own dictionary definitions
- Oracle 3GL programs must have separate copy of
record definitions
o ACMS cannot cancel a long Oracle procedure
- Oracle runs in Supervisor mode which blocks
VMS interrupts
o When your customer has performance problems (and with Oracle,
they certainly will), Oracle will always point the
finger at ACMS
o ACMS task syntax for Rdb START_TRANSACTION and COMMIT/ROLLBACK
of course cannot be used with Oracle
o Digital consultants will not be trained to support Oracle,
so any database issues have to be handled by the customer.
This can only prolong any problem resolution.
Good luck
|
| 370.7 | We still should be close to db2 | CLYPPR::CAMERON | | Wed Jul 19 1989 15:52 | 20 |
| The key influence on the VAX SQL project for each version was (in order):
VAX SQL V1.0
db2
ansi draft
dsri
VAX SQL V1.1
db2 and ansi
dsri
VAX SQL V2.0
ansi
dsri
db2
The early versions of VAX SQL would at least parse all db2 syntax. This is
not the case anymore. DB2 is no longer the standard, ANSI is. I think that
there is still an appendix in the documentation that states db2 differences.
|