Database Forum / DB2 Topics / February 2005
DB2, SQL Server, Oracle
|
|
Thread rating:  |
shaun.mostashari@lmco.com - 02 Feb 2005 23:16 GMT Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has done a trade study on DB2, SQL Server, and Oracle databases. Basically I am trying to identify which one to chose based on "Ease of implementation", Ease of maintenance", "Pricing" and "Ease of technical support". The criteria I am looking at can be obtained by interviewing people who have worked with these products. I appreciate any input I can get. Thanks, Shaun
Larry - 03 Feb 2005 01:33 GMT Shaun, the f Would you like to do a "trade" study? :-).
Thank you for not cross-posting this. I am not so sure that I agree that you will be able to get what you need by "interviewing people" especially on a newsgroup. I understand that you are trying to accomplish an objective, but past questions of this nature have done nothing but start flame wars. This is almost like a religious war, and you are only going to succeed in finding people's strong opinions here.
The best thing for you to do is consult with a company like Gartner, Giga, etc. ... or to construct a list of requirements based on your application and company needs ... and then work with your sales reps from each company to determine which one fits best. I can guarantee you that you are going to hear for the most part that all 3 of the dbmses that you reference are easy to implement, easy to maintain, low in price, and have good technical support. You need to drive this back to requirements like what type of application support do you need (MS, Java, XML, Web Services, DSS, OLTP, etc.), what skills already exist in your shop, what hw/sw platforms do you already have in your shop (not only os, but middleware), what type of scalability needs do you have, what type of growth rates are you expecting per annum, what ISVs are involved, is data integration with other databases important, is mainframe integration involved, etc.
Good luck!
Larry Edelstein
> Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has done a trade study on > DB2, SQL Server, and Oracle databases. Basically I am trying to > identify which one to chose based on "Ease of implementation", Ease of > maintenance", "Pricing" and "Ease of technical support". The criteria > I am looking at can be obtained by interviewing people who have worked > with these products. I appreciate any input I can get. Thanks, Shaun Knut Stolze - 03 Feb 2005 07:06 GMT > Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has done a trade study on > DB2, SQL Server, and Oracle databases. Basically I am trying to > identify which one to chose based on "Ease of implementation", Ease of > maintenance", "Pricing" and "Ease of technical support". The criteria > I am looking at can be obtained by interviewing people who have worked > with these products. I appreciate any input I can get. Thanks, Shaun Choose you product based on the experience and knowledge you (or the folks who have to work with it) have.
 Signature Knut Stolze Information Integration IBM Germany / University of Jena
RdR - 03 Feb 2005 13:06 GMT What I can say is all Databases are the same in terms of pricing, ease of use, ease of technical support, being good or bad on it comes at different times for the different vendors of those companies. I have personally experienced these for all companies. My conclusion is, whatever database you use, your data will always be delivered the way you planned and implemented your database system.
Having said that, it is only DB2 (with Websphere Information Integrator) that you can federate data from different databases. This is the reason why we chose DB2 as our database. With Websphere Information Integrator, my data can be in Oracle, SQL Server, Sybase, and it can appear as a DB2 table. This is one feature that is not present in the other databases. (BTW, I do NOT work for IBM).
If you see your company dealing with several databases and need to consolidate data from each, Ease of implementation wise, go DB2 with Websphere Information Integrator. You get federation capabilities, replication capabilities (actually two, SQL Replication and Message Q type of replication), you get log shipping capabilities for High Availability implementations, and be able to deal with "newer" data access methods like XML, and the ability to connect to Web Servers, SOAP Servers, and still be able to use legacy mainframe data.
Hope this helps.
RdR
> Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has done a trade study on > DB2, SQL Server, and Oracle databases. Basically I am trying to > identify which one to chose based on "Ease of implementation", Ease of > maintenance", "Pricing" and "Ease of technical support". The criteria > I am looking at can be obtained by interviewing people who have worked > with these products. I appreciate any input I can get. Thanks, Shaun Buck Nuggets - 04 Feb 2005 15:32 GMT > What I can say is all Databases are the same in terms of pricing, ease of use, ease of technical support, being good or bad on it comes at different
> times for the different vendors of those companies. I have personally experienced these for all companies. My conclusion is, whatever database you
> use, your data will always be delivered the way you planned and implemented your database system.
Well, I've got to respectively disagree with you there: sql server is still the easiest to manage and develop for in my opinion, but stuck on windows, lacks partitioning, lacks decent exception handling in its stored procedures, is crippled from the command line - and if you actually want to promote DTS packages from dev to test to prod it's incredibly difficult. Oracle has a fabulous partitioning solution - great for real-time loading, great 3rd-party support, etc. But is the most expensive, and most complex to manage. DB2 has improved usability & online maintenance tremendously in the last few years, and has a price & ease of maintenance benefit over oracle in my experience now. Still plenty of areas in which one has the edge over the other - a nice competitive arrangement I think. :-)
Anyhow, my question is - have you worked with Websphere Information Integrator? I thought it just became named that this year...
Are you actually federating data across multiple vendor products with it?
Was it easy? How long did it take you to set it up, learn the product, and slip it into production?
Do you think it would make federating a dozen db2 databases easier than just doing it manually with nicknames & replication (if you must)?
When it breaks do you need a team of db2, oracle, j2ee, ii, and webspere experts all in the same room to make sense out of it?
Thanks!
Buck
RdR - 05 Feb 2005 04:44 GMT Hi Buck,
Actually, I was already involved with it as early as March 2004 . I was involved in the beta testing as well when it was still named DB2 Information Integrator. In terms of using setting it up, the first moth understanding the concepts took a bit of pain but after that, setting it up was relatively easy. I would recommend going through a DB2 II introduction course which I believe is still no charge under IBM's ISV program (if you are not an ISV and there is space, there is a big chance you can get in this course). If you attend the course, they will gladly give you the lab settings but you have to get DB2 and DB2 II (WS II), there are 120 day test codes at IBM's site. After that, invest in about three days of onsite consulting to have someone come in to just show how federation, replication, setting things up are done.
Our approach to using DB2 and WS II in consolidating our heterogeneous databases were teo prong. For data sources below 5 million records, we just federate accross different databases, meaning data does not leave where they are, we just define nicknames in DB2 and just create views in case we need to federate data from different sources. So I create a view from a bunch of nicknames coming from Oracle, SQL, DB2 and then our reporting tool just hits these views. For DB2 data sources bigger that 5 million records, we use Data Propagator to replicatate a subset of this to DB2, SQL, Oracle appropriately. We found that federation is fast and efficient only up to a certain volume of transactions, after that performance is an issue, so we use Data Propagator or Q Replication to distribute data out and re-federate them back to DB2 for our reporting tool to hit.
In terms of supporting it, it is still true for us that anything IBM when it is working is great but when it breaks, it is too tough to fix things. Having said that, with DB2 II (or WS II) in time, you will get familiar with its quirks. For federation, in two months, one can be a federation expert. With replication issues especially if you are using replication to massage data, change values, implement business rules, it may be a bit of a challenge but if you compare using Data Propagator or Q replication or Web Publish as part of an ETL (Extact transform and Load) tool, I will still say, it is easier to use than Informatica or Asenctial. You get more real time replication as well through Data Propagator or the now faster Q replication (but you also need an MQ support person if you plan to use Q replication).
Our approach in having support here is to have a dedicated Replication / Federation expert. this expert need to have only basic DBA skills (such as designing tables, executing DML, cleansing duplicate data, but highly skilled on jdbc drivers, odbc drivers, message queues, database connectivity. As this person gets used to the product, the support starts to become easier (6 months heavy exposure will do).
Hope this helps.
RdR
> > What I can say is all Databases are the same in terms of pricing, > ease of [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Buck Buck Nuggets - 07 Feb 2005 04:13 GMT > Hope this helps. yep - first info i've seen from the field on this product, thanks!
I typically rely much more on etl than replication - since I prefer to transform the data (replacing text with strings, versioning, adding related keys, denormalizing, converting for consistency, etc). But you're right about the complexity (and cost) of commercial etl solutions. I think our industry has been harmed by a commercial-only etl strategy - since there's been almost no publishing & documentation of the successful development patterns for ETL.
Anyhow, I'll look forward to seeing how this can play a role in broader data architectures & real-time data warehousing.
Buck
|
|
|