Re: SQL db2 usage/overhead on your system questions.

[Jim Oberholtzer <midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I forgot to mention there is a European version of the Advisory Council 
as well as the Americas one.

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects


On 12/3/2012 6:11 AM, Jim Oberholtzer wrote:
> This is is the easy part of the answer.  IBM provides investment
> guarantees to you when you buy your system, they don't break old code.
> They will re-encapsulate it, run it in a less efficient way, run it in
> an emulator of sorts, but they will not intentionally break it.  Clearly
> they don't quite make 100% but it's damned close to it.
>
> A second reason is investment money.  IBM spends a good deal of money to
> build the systems but in the end they are a business, and the investment
> money in new feature/function has to make a return.  The requirements
> are driven by the Large Users Group (LUG) and the COMMON Americas'
> Advisory Council (CAAC).
>
> A third component is hardware.  Many functions have to wait for
> processor support in order to be implemented in an efficient way.  That
> continues to be true today and why you see the Technology Refreshes.  As
> hardware steps up to support things, then feature/function is added via
> the TRs.  All very cool when you think of it.
>
> Jim Oberholtzer
> Chief Technical Architect
> Agile Technology Architects
>
>
> On 12/3/2012 1:56 AM, D*B wrote:
> > >  I don’t know why it takes years and a couple of releases to consolidate two query engines to one and why the DBMON throws it’s data into tables with an undocumented (it could change with next PTF) layout, so you would need a client tool to bring it to some normalized form (just to fool the russians?). This tool is better than having nothing, but I would prefere to have the ability to do some investigation automatically by programms.
> --