RE: Creating dds source from SQL Tables

The Feb 2007 issue of System iNews contains an excellent article on
iSeries/i5/System I DBAs. 

Does the fact the DB2 on the iSeries does not necessarily require a DBA
make it a non-standard database?

Does the allowance of single record access/native/direct HLL access, as
defined and allowed by Codd's rules, make DB2 on the i5 a non-standard
database? As one may say on Digg, "RDBMS != SQL".

Which features are lacking in DB2 on the System I that make it a
non-standard database?

Unlike Oracle and SQL server, I do not need to gather statistics,
rebuild existing indexes, manage table spaces, or have headaches when
updating server hardware. Does this make DB2 on our beloved box a
non-standard database?

Loyd Goodbar
Senior programmer/analyst
BorgWarner
TS Water Valley
662-473-5713
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces+lgoodbar=borgwarner.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces+lgoodbar=borgwarner.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jerry Adams
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 07:14
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Creating dds source from SQL Tables

Dave Odom wrote:

Word to the wise if you talk to others using industry standard RDBM's,
like the real DB2s and ORACLE... don't tout nor brag about DB2/400's
traditional record access as you'll only embarrass yourself.  They

don't

consider the platform nor its DB2 as a serious contender in the RDBMS
wars.   Think I'm wrong, go to a real DB2 convention and talk about

DB2

on the 400  or an ORACLE convention and do the same and see how they
react. 
 

  

I have spoken with a couple of these people.  One is a former iSeries 
programmer now doing work for the last five years primarily in SQL 
Server, but with a significant amount of Oracle work.  His opinion of 
Oracle is that, while it may be good, Oracle has so many vendor 
extensions that it makes it difficult to interact with other databases 
and darn near impossible to convert.  DB2 is an industry standard, 
albeit with its own vendor extensions.

The other was an SQL Server dba.  He got pretty tired of me repeatedly 
tell him during a project that "Gee, we never have that kind of problem 
of the iSeries."  So he went on-line to get rebuttal data.  After a 
week, his comment was "That's damn good!"  Why is it that dba's are 
almost non-existent on a System i, but pretty much mandatory on other 
systems?

I took some university courses (the basic "SQL 101 and 102") on SQL 
Server back about five years ago.  After spending about five minutes 
learning the "new" nomenclature (libraries = schemas, etc.), there 
wasn't much to it.  Except for actual deployment, everything learned on 
an iSeries (except for Views, which were new to me) translated pretty 
much.  Aced the courses without having to do much studing (which is a 
good thing cause I'm a lazy s.o.b.).


        * Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i5/iSeries Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
        615.995.7024
fax
        615.995.1201
email
        jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>