Re: MySQL and DB2 storage engine for IBM i

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

You can run mySql on i - have been able to do so for a long time now. 
The storage engine is just a way to use the i database as the place the 
data is stored. Yes, it originally was uni-directional, but Brian May, 
who posts in these lists, was working on enabling the use of 
pre-existing iSeries tables or files. Not sure where he got with that.

But there's no reason to abandon the use of mySql on i, so far as I can 
see, only, perhaps, the storage engine. The other storage engines are 
all still there in mySql, right?

This means now that RPG developers would have to use JDBC or something 
like my open access handler to work with mySql data - no big deal!

Right?

Vern

On 12/18/2010 8:14 PM, Mark Murphy/STAR BASE Consulting Inc. wrote:
> The DB2 engine on i was never more than a half baked attempt to link MySql to DB2.  You can not use existing tables with MySql, nor can you use tables defined with DDS or SQL/400.  They have to be defined through MySql.  Granted there isn't a DB2 for i storage engine for Postgres, but you really aren't loosing all that much as long as you can get it to work in PASE.  If Oracle is going to try to make MySQL just a stepping stone to Oracle DB, then they will never allow it to become fully featured for DB2, and they may even take away some existing features, or avoid adding features in the future.  Hey, Oracle has not proven to be a strong open source supporter.
>
> Mark Murphy
> STAR BASE Consulting, Inc.
> mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
> To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries<web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: Vern Hamberg
> Sent by: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: 12/18/2010 05:01PM
> Subject: Re: [WEB400] MySQL and DB2 storage engine for IBM i
>
> Good question - the DB2 engine on i for mySql was just that - a way to
> store data defined in mySql in a different way. Postgresql is
> self-contained, so far as I know. Does it have plugins for storage
> engines that are similar to what mySql has? If not, there's no reason to
> go with it. The mySql effort seems related to PHP, et al. The engine
> made is possible to read mySql data in native programs. Again, no
> similar purpose exists with any other RDBMS that I'm aware of.
>
> Regards
> Vern
>
> On 12/18/2010 2:21 PM, Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen wrote:
> > -snip-
> Why would you choose PostgreSQL instead of DB2/400 which works out of
> > the box?
> >
> > /Thorbjørn