Rob may shoot me for saying this but based on what I know about him and
Group Dekko a lot of what they do is based on the foundation of
efficient and proper use of technology. It's not technology for the
sake of it, but technology for the sake of sound business or IT
practices. Yes, it might be more leading edge then the rest of us but
it's done very well and with proper reason. My company is much more
moderate in it's adaptation of technology so I'm not just saying nice
things about them because they might just apply to us. I broke my arm
patting myself on the back a long time ago.....it's darn near physically
Manager, Computing Services
Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.
1509 S. Macedonia Ave.
Muncie, IN 47302
This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended
solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views
or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of Saint-Gobain. <redaction>. If you are
not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must
take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to
anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this
email in error.
A company that will go to the ends of the earth for its people will find
it can hire them for about 10% of the cost of Americans.
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:08 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Which of the SYSIBM tables/views show the row count for
I think you hit on a great point. Of course, Rob is one who likes living
on the bleeding edge and might just be able to justify what you are
I was curious about when SQL Server, e.g., came into existence, compared
to the AS/400. Looked it up on WIKI - Microsoft took over Sybase' SQL
Server around 1989 and I think official release of SQL Server around
1992. If I read the charts and text right - it WAS early.
There was already an established base of S38 apps using non-SQL
techniques - but SQL was already out in some form on the 38 and
certainly on the 400, which came out in 1988 or so. But we have suffered
from the "no-name-database" problem.
Having said that, I'll probably repeat - the fact that an RDBMS is used
other than with relational best practices does NOT make it other than an
RDBMS, IMNSHO. I can use SQL Server or Oracle in just as "bad" a way as
is being claimed for us dinosaurs on the 400. But I know I was thinking
in relational terms in 1995 on the AS/400 when putting an app together,
even to 3rd normal form, even though I was not cognizant of all the
details of that. It just made sense. But I COULD put dates into SQL
Server in 6 or 8 digit numbers. Easy to do.
I've come to the conclusion that this is a perception and marketing
issue again, not a technical one. I'm convinced that we do have an RDBMS
on the iSeries, but IBM has again done a woeful job of getting this
fortressed information out to the general database public.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Cunningham <mcunning@xxxxxxx>
Don't you think some of these issues are also due to how long
DB2/400 have been inexistence and have not been forced to
unload/reload into a
new structure either due to a major change in the database engine or a
change in hardware. To go back to a large database that was designed
available in the 80's and has hundreds of applications using it and
bring it up
to date using current tools and functionality is a very time consuming
and sometimes adds nothing to the businesses bottom line. If it does
process faster or more efficient then it should be done. Yes, dates
stored in date type fields but 8.0 numeric fields also work and
organizations money just to change from one to the other can't be
that alone. I do think any new tables (files), columns (fields) should
created using the newest tools available and I do not see any reason
journal just about every table, old or new.
On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:12 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Which of the SYSIBM tables/views show the row count for
I have to agree that many of these features are in there and yet, it
a severe beating to get people to actually use them.