Re: Which of the SYSIBM tables/views show the row count for

Vern, et al (so I can sort of group my responses),

Well, it seems like I got some, a pitiful few, to think outside the box. But, sadly, most still drink the Rochester kook-aid and still justify things like a person that says the Bible is the truth because it says it is. And, because of that, it is foolish of me to try to convince religious zealots their gospel might not make it in the industry standard and accepted RDBMS world. Again, I just wish this community could see itself like the rest of the IT world sees it and spend some time talking to the real DB2 and ORACLE crowd on their forums and conventions and see how their positions hold up.

Of particular note was one reply which said you don't need a journal that journals all transactions. That's shocked me. Real RDBMS don't give you that choice ... to pick and choose how you want to play... they set standards enforced at the database engine level, like only SQL and always having a log (journals) for data integrity and point-in-time recovery reasons, just to name a few. If this is sanctioned in the i5 RDBMS, in any way, it seems, the i5 is like MS Access...allowing choice where it's dangerous and bad development methodology to do so. "The writer followed on with "To say that something is inferior because it has MORE features makes no sense." Sure does when they are antiquated. "Calling ISAM a back door is elitism." Allowing an alternative entry way looks like a back-door to me. "Forcing someone to use SQL only is technological fascism." Hummm, the worlds leading RDBMs, do that all the time and don't seem to feel they are in a fascist world wherein there is a negiative collusion of government and industry.
Also of note, was one reply, "ticking" off that the i5 had all the attributes I and many others looking from the outside, question that it has, except by work arounds and maskings. Makes me wonder if that's how it got it's ANSI rating; someone at Rochester told the ANSI committee it met their criteria because they said it did. Again, the religious folks argument about the Bible.... the i5 has all these things because someone, like Rochester, says it does.

But I'm so very glad that my simple, but admittedly short and incomplete answers, did spark some to question database design and application design methodologies on the i5. I see some "get it" that the i5 crowd are their own worst enemy with regard to accepted real RDBMS development methodologies.

Your quite right the i5 has a marketing problem, but it also has a reputation problem and they are somewhat related. It is also true the attitude of the folks here won't help with those problems when competing against those looking for an industry standard RDBMS.

What is also true is that I am actively working to make the reputation and acceptance of the i5 better with those that are died-in-the-wool ORACLE and MS fans and want to get rid of the i5 and DB2/400 and will only choose and build new applications and databases on those platforms because they hate IBM. This while trying to show a very religious community here the error of its preaching and taking its barbs. This reminds me of religious folks, at least in some parts of the US, that constantly preach to the converted and wonder why more outside their world don't come into their fold.

Sincerely,

David Odom
Arizona