A "real RDBMS"; was: How can I determine "hit rate" for a set of files in

That DB2 for i5/OS allows more access methods to the SQL objects and the data beyond just the SQL is an advantage over other databases, that vitiates neither the /Relational/ nor the /Database Management System/ parts of /RDBMS/. I fail to understand the attitude that either making [or pretending, for the sake of perception] that the DB2 for i5/OS SQL database objects and data are available only to the SQL could change _anything_ with regard to decisions of someone actually writing the checks. I would expect that the versatility of the DB2 for i5/OS would be desirable, or perhaps those cutting the checks dislike versatility?

It seems obvious to me that the bias against the DB2 for i5/OS will exist irrespective of its being SQL-only, because the basis for such bigotry is the lack of and unwillingness to understand the database for what it offers, as an integrated part of the object based i5/OS. The real problems with perception are more likely to be for whatever the DB2 for i5/OS SQL does *not* offer as compared with whatever database one is currently most familiar. As a niche OS ensconced only in business settings, with its database integrated, I would expect any like database would [be destined to] suffer in that way; i.e. its database being niche since its OS is niche, excepting, /if it could run in Windows and *nix/.

How would eliminating non-SQL access to the database on i5/OS improve perceptions, if by having done that, many thousands of applications would no longer function? I would expect that removing the versatility would hasten the demise of the database and thus surely the operating system, much sooner than some ill-deserved negative reputation based on uneducated perceptions that DB2 for i5/OS is a /pseudo-RDBMS/ rather than a /real RDBMS/.

The Leatherman is not a /real pliers/, it is a /pseudo-pliers + more/, which is appropriate for niche settings like camping. If the one writing the checks is buying for camping, why would they discount the tool just because it is not the /normal/ and /familiar/ pliers? Probably only if they fail to understand the product, due to some bigoted idea that the /real pliers/ are the only option. So it might not be the best for those applications where the /normal/ pliers are a perfect fit. But to dismiss it entirely, just because it is not the perfect fit, while at the same time ignoring the possible benefits of its versatility, seems foolish if not also ignorant or even incompetent, for failure to investigate its utility.

How many of those dismissive check writers have even delved into what DB2 for i5/OS can accomplish for them, as compared to whatever other database? Close to none.? As I already alluded, they probably had already dismissed it for some other reason; e.g. it is niche and they do not want niche. There are probably fewer in number, than digits on my dad's hands, where some evaluation of statements about non-SQL access was a primary if even legitimate concern for a potential buyer. And then even if a legitimate concern, at least second, but probably beyond the fifth in a list of _other_ reasons not to buy. In other words, to dismiss DB2 for i5/OS due to non-SQL access would just be an excuse or rationalization or /pseudo-reasons/, and secondary to any /real/ reason(s) they might have to dismiss it.

Regards, Chuck