Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Jerry, We prefer to call it In-elegant Design and we teach it as an alternative to your view of the UniVerse. END OF THREAD - Move it to U2-Community or let it go. Jerry Banker wrote: So what you are saying is that relational theory, since it is not proven, in essence does not exist. :-) Jerry -Original Message- From: Dawn Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:56 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org So, when Date or Codd uses the term relational theory they do not mean that it is something that is not yet proven, they are referring to doing pure mathematics. --dawn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- Charles Barouch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) www.KeyAlly.com (718) 762-3884 x 1 P. O. Box 540957, Queens, NY 11354 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Dawn: There are several definitions in your link I would be embarrassed to use. Those who employ Descartes Corrollary as an analytical model, I think therefore I'm right!, will always abuse language to come up with some of these definitions (conjecture is a theory?). My favorite definition of statistics is a common Wall Street Journal refrain: if you torture statistics long enough they'll confess to anything. It looks like we're throwing a wide enough definition net to snare any description of theory. :-) Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:56 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance On 7/20/07, Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dawn Wolthuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes snip Mathematicians prove theories correct, Scientists prove theories wrong. [snipped Another fine point here as there is another definition that is more applicable to the term mathematical theory. I sometimes poke or tease relational theorists (do I know how to have fun or what?) by using your above def of theory, but if you look at something like http://www.answers.com/theoryr=67 and take the third def, that is what is intended when discussing what is considered a mathematical theory -- A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. So, when Date or Codd uses the term relational theory they do not mean that it is something that is not yet proven, they are referring to doing pure mathematics. --dawn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dawn Wolthuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Ummm ... but as Dawn says, a lot of its advocates treat it as a mathematical model - and then use that to try and PREscribe how the world is supposed to work - a mathematical trait if ever there was one! I can't let that one slide by, dear scientist colleague. The mathematician happily works within the world of mathematics. It is the scientist, applied mathematician (not considered to BE a mathematician at all by pure mathematicians ;-) ), engineer, or other practitioner who connects the matheatics to the world. The (true) scientist does NOT attempt to PREscribe how the world works :-) But I was probably (mis?)quoting the following... The theory itself does not ban empirical testing. Those who think that relational theory is pure even after they apply it, try to put it on a pedestal where it is immune to being tested even in its application. :-) So, when relational theorists are doing relational theory, they are happily doing mathematics. When they indicate that it is relevant to software, they are not doing mathematics. Look to the scientists when you want an example of mis-applied mathematics. In fact, that is where you found your example. Cheers! --dawn Mm Was Galileo trying to DEscribe, or PREscribe. The fact is, he didn't have the mathematical tools to do the job - as I say it was Kepler who developed them maybe a couple of centuries later - which is why he wasn't believed. So are the relational people Computer *Scientists* or Computer *Mathematicians*? I think half the trouble nowadays is that people don't understand the difference between maths and science. I now have an extremely simple definition, but it took me a Masters course module, and then a long time, to get it all right. Mathematicians prove theories correct, Scientists prove theories wrong. Computer Science is in the business of proving things correct, therefore it can't be science :-( Oh - and you need the correct definition of a theory before you can understand the above definition - A theory is something which is not yet proven. (And for those who wonder at that definition, seeing as we seem to believe many scientific theories as proven, scientific theories are believed precisely because we have been UNABLE to prove them wrong. Mind you, I can't off-hand recall *any* scientific theories currently that haven't - at least in the fine detail - been proven wrong.) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
On 7/20/07, Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dawn Wolthuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes snip Mathematicians prove theories correct, Scientists prove theories wrong. Computer Science is in the business of proving things correct, therefore it can't be science :-( Oh - and you need the correct definition of a theory before you can understand the above definition - A theory is something which is not yet proven. (And for those who wonder at that definition, seeing as we seem to believe many scientific theories as proven, scientific theories are believed precisely because we have been UNABLE to prove them wrong. Mind you, I can't off-hand recall *any* scientific theories currently that haven't - at least in the fine detail - been proven wrong.) Another fine point here as there is another definition that is more applicable to the term mathematical theory. I sometimes poke or tease relational theorists (do I know how to have fun or what?) by using your above def of theory, but if you look at something like http://www.answers.com/theoryr=67 and take the third def, that is what is intended when discussing what is considered a mathematical theory -- A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. So, when Date or Codd uses the term relational theory they do not mean that it is something that is not yet proven, they are referring to doing pure mathematics. --dawn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
So what you are saying is that relational theory, since it is not proven, in essence does not exist. :-) Jerry -Original Message- From: Dawn Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:56 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org So, when Date or Codd uses the term relational theory they do not mean that it is something that is not yet proven, they are referring to doing pure mathematics. --dawn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Anthony W. Youngman skrev: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mats Carlid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Anthony W. Youngman skrev: At which point, you hit my hobbyhorse ... In the real world ... - relational database theory has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do with the real world. It's an exercise in pure maths. And You hit my hobbyhorse or rather one of them :-) ... RDMS theory is absolutely not pure maths! So you'd say it's applied maths? Getting off-topic, but I've never really understood the difference (as in how it is defined) between pure and applied. I know you can look at a problem and know which is which, but how do you define it? No I don't have a definition of pure math's. Maybe high abstraction leval mathematics is a better word for it. digressing A very narrow defintion could be maths so abstract that it will never find an application ? But no - remember the 19century guys develloping the theory for non-linear multidimensional spaces ( Riemann et. al. ) and tensors - they thought they had a absolutely pure theory wich would never find an application and so did others until Eistein published the general theory of relatlivity only a few decades later ... /digressing I really wanted to express two opinions : 1. RDBMS is not more pure maths than Pick.is. It's just a heavily restricted special case of abstract relation theory. It's more restricted than Pick. The restirctions are from a 'pure' mathematical point of view totally arbitrary - but justifiable from an engineering standpoint - except the 1NF of course :-) 2. RDBMS is not anywhere near the abstraction level of the general theory of relations and certainly is not the mathematical relation theory - as sometimes advocated. -- mats --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Just looked at the copy of Pick BASIC I have on my desktop and sure enough, the technical editor is Mr. Clifton Oliver. So, he sold at least one of those books. -- Don Kibbey --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dawn Wolthuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes When this theory from set theory or predicate logic is applied to data modeling or databases, it becomes applied. So, from a purist standpoint, I'll vote with Wol on this. However, the Computer Science community also uses the terms relational theory or relational modeling or relational databases without placing any of these strictly within the domain of pure mathematics. So, as used by the CS discipline, it is applied mathematics. Applied mathematics has no such claim to objectivity in the sense that if one chooses an inappropriate mathematical model (many examples of this in the history of science, but none popping to mine immediately), your applied mathematics is flawed. Want a good example? Galileo! The reason he wasn't believed by many people when he said that the planets go round the sun, was that he said the planets *circle* the sun. Not his fault, I think he was contemporary with or pre Brahe, and it was Kepler who solved the maths of ellipses. So while the Copernican view that the celestial sphere went round the earth was a mathematical mess, so also was Galileo's theory that the planets circle the sun. Of course, today we remember him for the idea that the planets go round the sun, but that wasn't the theory as he advanced it ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
On 7/19/07, Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mats Carlid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I really wanted to express two opinions : 1. RDBMS is not more pure maths than Pick.is. It's just a heavily restricted special case of abstract relation theory. It's more restricted than Pick. The restirctions are from a 'pure' mathematical point of view totally arbitrary - but justifiable from an engineering standpoint - except the 1NF of course :-) Are they? I can't remember the rules off-hand, but I did an analysis on pickwiki, and I think several of them are untenable from a scientific viewpoint. 2. RDBMS is not anywhere near the abstraction level of the general theory of relations and certainly is not the mathematical relation theory - as sometimes advocated. Ummm ... but as Dawn says, a lot of its advocates treat it as a mathematical model - and then use that to try and PREscribe how the world is supposed to work - a mathematical trait if ever there was one! I can't let that one slide by, dear scientist colleague. The mathematician happily works within the world of mathematics. It is the scientist, applied mathematician (not considered to BE a mathematician at all by pure mathematicians ;-) ), engineer, or other practitioner who connects the matheatics to the world. So, when relational theorists are doing relational theory, they are happily doing mathematics. When they indicate that it is relevant to software, they are not doing mathematics. Look to the scientists when you want an example of mis-applied mathematics. In fact, that is where you found your example. Cheers! --dawn -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Yeah, I played around with it, and the overhead that is added is typically a couple hundred milliseconds. That is not much, but we typically get responses from our existing processes in .005 seconds, those couple hundred milliseconds make a huge difference. I should clarify my statement, the performance for a typical app is sufficient, but not for what we are doing. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:54 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick: We've developed an application in .NET using mv.NET to connect to UniData and the connectivity is screaming fast. A complete .NET developer does all our development and we do all the dbms design and implementation. The dbms development and connectivity gets done in no-time while the .NET takes quite a bit of time and requires a lot of patience. :-) Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:29 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance --Not quite so easy to go .net - UniVerse. Well put. This is one of the issues we are running into. We are a .Net shop, and going from .Net to UV has been a challenge to say the least. The primary issue being the overhead associated with access the data via uo.net. Performance just isn't good enough. Thanks, Nick Cipollina --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Good Morning, I really enjoyed reading this thread. I can honestly say that the diversity of experiences and people who comprise this listserv is amazing. And I've found the shared knowledge to be invaluable. As one who has not been immersed in the U2 environment for an extended period of time, there is one item that serves as a continued source of frustration. And it's exactly what Phil mentions below...sparse documentation. Not only for new stuff, but also for what I consider to be general items. More than once I have had a problem and through research, found that a PDF containing possibly pertinent information could be obtained from the IBM web site. Knowing it was there did me absolutely no good at all. Because my connection to the U2 world is through our software vendor, IBM has consistently refused to acknowledge/honor any request that I've made for information. And based upon the feedback I have gotten at times from the vendors support center, they (the support center) has a equ! ally difficult time extracting U2 information from IBM. And it's not like there are selves full of books on U2 that I could turn to for research...at least not that I've seen. I can go to any major book store and find two or three selves of books on MS SQL and NONE on U2. This was particularly frustrating when I was first getting started with U2 four years ago. How could there be no books? Regardless of the bookstores I've visited over the years, the results has always been the same. I have since learned that, outside of spending thousands of dollars to go to vendor sponsored training classes (and receiving their training books), the best way to learn about things in this environment is through the listservs...word of mouth...trial and error. For one who has spent a considerable amount of time (with past systems I've supported) over the years plowing through technical manuals learning the nuances of how to best work with a product, being denied that information is very ! frustrating. The only consolation are listserves such as this one. The U2 industry is ill served by what I perceive to be an informational void relative to the product. And the tragedy is that this is a really good family of products. Very worthy of recognition along with the other major players in the RDBMS arena. Something should be done to free up this log-jam. And the first thing that would be really helpful is if IBM allowed both their direct customers AND the clients of those customers (such as myself), direct access to all aspects of the critical information contained upon their web site. Maybe then people will start writing books about U2. My two cents, Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Robert, There is a firmly held belief that if books were available, that we, as a group, are too cheap to buy them. Clif Oliver (who ran this list for 9 years) used to edit a Pick series of O'Reilly. When I contacted Tim O'Reilly about a year ago, proposing new MV books, he said that he'd love to, but he can't afford to lose that kind of money. If you want books, we need to commit to publishers. I'm sure Brian would be willing to put up a sign-up sheet on U2UG.org, so we can submit a list of people who promise to buy at least one copy if a publisher will print a new book. I think a pre-order of 1K copies would get us some traction. Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. -- Charles Barouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Consulting (718) 762-3884x1 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
AMEN!! -Original Message- From: Smith, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:14 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Good Morning, I really enjoyed reading this thread. I can honestly say that the diversity of experiences and people who comprise this listserv is amazing. And I've found the shared knowledge to be invaluable. As one who has not been immersed in the U2 environment for an extended period of time, there is one item that serves as a continued source of frustration. And it's exactly what Phil mentions below...sparse documentation. Not only for new stuff, but also for what I consider to be general items. More than once I have had a problem and through research, found that a PDF containing possibly pertinent information could be obtained from the IBM web site. Knowing it was there did me absolutely no good at all. Because my connection to the U2 world is through our software vendor, IBM has consistently refused to acknowledge/honor any request that I've made for information. And based upon the feedback I have gotten at times from the vendors support center, they (the support center) has a equ! ally difficult time extracting U2 information from IBM. And it's not like there are selves full of books on U2 that I could turn to for research...at least not that I've seen. I can go to any major book store and find two or three selves of books on MS SQL and NONE on U2. This was particularly frustrating when I was first getting started with U2 four years ago. How could there be no books? Regardless of the bookstores I've visited over the years, the results has always been the same. I have since learned that, outside of spending thousands of dollars to go to vendor sponsored training classes (and receiving their training books), the best way to learn about things in this environment is through the listservs...word of mouth...trial and error. For one who has spent a considerable amount of time (with past systems I've supported) over the years plowing through technical manuals learning the nuances of how to best work with a product, being denied that information is very ! frustrating. The only consolation are listserves such as this one. The U2 industry is ill served by what I perceive to be an informational void relative to the product. And the tragedy is that this is a really good family of products. Very worthy of recognition along with the other major players in the RDBMS arena. Something should be done to free up this log-jam. And the first thing that would be really helpful is if IBM allowed both their direct customers AND the clients of those customers (such as myself), direct access to all aspects of the critical information contained upon their web site. Maybe then people will start writing books about U2. My two cents, Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. I certainly would be! I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer real books over electronic media. You can read words on paper anywhere, no batteries required. === Norman Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brake.com === A committee is twelve people doing the work of one. === --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I was looking at our bookshelf, we have the old series of soft cover manuals from V-Mark on UniVerse and then we have several books on PICK, none of which is new. Our PICK books are from 1985 to 1990 mostly published by TAB Professional and Reference Books, one is from Hayden Book Company; Exploring the PICK Operating System by Jonathan E. Sisk and Steve VanArsdale. The TAB books are: PICK for the IBM PC and Compatibles by John W. Winters, PH.D and Dale E. Winters; Programming with IBM PC Basic and the PICK Database System by David L. Clark; PICK Basic A Programmers Guide by Jonathan E. Sisk; The PICK Perspective by Ian Jeffery Sandler; PICK for Professionals Advanced Methods and Techniques by Harvey E. Rodstein and lastly, The PICK Pocket Guide by Jonathan E. Sisk. This last one I think has stopped many people at the airport luggage check. Although they are old they still come in handy especially when training new people. It would be nice to have newer books to choose from with more updated programming techniques, applications, and languages. As Alice's Restaurant says, With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one saying what they was all about. Jerry -Original Message- From: Charles Barouch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Robert, There is a firmly held belief that if books were available, that we, as a group, are too cheap to buy them. Clif Oliver (who ran this list for 9 years) used to edit a Pick series of O'Reilly. When I contacted Tim O'Reilly about a year ago, proposing new MV books, he said that he'd love to, but he can't afford to lose that kind of money. If you want books, we need to commit to publishers. I'm sure Brian would be willing to put up a sign-up sheet on U2UG.org, so we can submit a list of people who promise to buy at least one copy if a publisher will print a new book. I think a pre-order of 1K copies would get us some traction. Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. -- Charles Barouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Consulting (718) 762-3884x1 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
So would I. -Original Message- From: Norman Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. I certainly would be! I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer real books over electronic media. You can read words on paper anywhere, no batteries required. === Norman Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brake.com === A committee is twelve people doing the work of one. === --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Nick: The clarity of the mv.NET pooling description is subject to debate (there's pooling, sharing, allocated, free, etc). The developers were kind enough to explain it to me once but I still find it confusing to implement. One has to be careful because the .NET code does have an effect on the pooling (no caching of connection objects [?]). One also has to remember the UO.NET version is critical; get the wrong version and the environment becomes difficult at best. But we struggle on. :-) We purchased a UO connection pool license for testing. Our thought was this would handle all our mv.NET connections into the dbms, using UO.NET, so we wouldn't need to purchase separate licenses. We're still trying to track down this possibility. Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:14 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Bill, If you are using MV.NET, it has its own connection pooling which is pretty well documented. That being the case, you don't even need to use the UO.NET built in connection pooling. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:49 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Phil: A quick example is I'm trying to find out how their Connection Pool license works. Noone seems to know nor can I find out how this integrates with mv.Net using UO.NET as the connection. I can't find out how to configure a connection pool, monitor the connections, or anything else. [sigh] :-( Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:56 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Leroy, I know IBM are implementing much of these new technologies with regard to U2. The problem that I see is that it may be there, but a lot of the people in the list cannot find information on how to use it either because this information * does not exist * exists but in very basic examples which do not show a 'real' business solution, e.g. order processing or something similar * exists but they do not have access to it .e.g. IBM Knowledgebase... Those are the issues as I see it. How to tie up the Webservices,Soap,XML schemas etc, triggers, and existing BASIC subroutines. And what is good and bad practice. Cheers, Phil. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
LeRoy: Thanks for the information. I think I mentioned we're using mv.NET with the UO.NET connection (not UniObjects). U2 connection pooling is supposed to work with UO.NET. In order for mv.NET to work I just need to make sure I have enough U2 licenses. Why I couldn't purchase a UD connection pooling license and expect it to work, as an MV developer, is something I'd like to track down. Surely, I can't be expected to have the technical knowledge and experience of BlueFinity in order to implement connection pooling in my little MV application, with .NET components. :-) I think this is the point Phil was making, which I gave some anecdotal information to support. Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LeRoy Dreyfuss Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:51 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Bill, mv.NET from BlueFinity would be using standard UniObjects and as such, could not take advantage of connection pooling from U2 (CP). There may be licensing implications with U2 that require one to acquire CP licenses to use mv.NET, though. In any case, it is a simple matter of changing the license configuration (and paying the appropriate fee, of course) of either UniData or UniVerse to enable it. If you find the documentation from IBM not exactly what you need in terms of using CP in your application, there is a white paper on their (IBM U2) Website at: ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/data/u2/pubs/whitepapers/ib mu2-microsoftnet.pdf You might find the white paper useful. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:49 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Phil: A quick example is I'm trying to find out how their Connection Pool license works. Noone seems to know nor can I find out how this integrates with mv.Net using UO.NET as the connection. I can't find out how to configure a connection pool, monitor the connections, or anything else. [sigh] :-( Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Lets see I just spent 50.00 for a book on ajax, 80 for a book on real estate accounting, 50 for a book on netbeans. Of course, I would spend money on a book about Pick/U2/mvBasic on Cache. I WOULD however exclude one author even if they gave the book away - so let us see the authors first. george -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Barouch Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Robert, There is a firmly held belief that if books were available, that we, as a group, are too cheap to buy them. Clif Oliver (who ran this list for 9 years) used to edit a Pick series of O'Reilly. When I contacted Tim O'Reilly about a year ago, proposing new MV books, he said that he'd love to, but he can't afford to lose that kind of money. If you want books, we need to commit to publishers. I'm sure Brian would be willing to put up a sign-up sheet on U2UG.org, so we can submit a list of people who promise to buy at least one copy if a publisher will print a new book. I think a pre-order of 1K copies would get us some traction. Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. -- Charles Barouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Consulting (718) 762-3884x1 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Why doesn't IBM allow access to all information that would help users - we've already bought the product? Nancy Fisher Peninsula Truck Lines, Inc Auburn, Washington 253/929-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Smith, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:14 AM Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Good Morning, I really enjoyed reading this thread. I can honestly say that the diversity of experiences and people who comprise this listserv is amazing. And I've found the shared knowledge to be invaluable. As one who has not been immersed in the U2 environment for an extended period of time, there is one item that serves as a continued source of frustration. And it's exactly what Phil mentions below...sparse documentation. Not only for new stuff, but also for what I consider to be general items. More than once I have had a problem and through research, found that a PDF containing possibly pertinent information could be obtained from the IBM web site. Knowing it was there did me absolutely no good at all. Because my connection to the U2 world is through our software vendor, IBM has consistently refused to acknowledge/honor any request that I've made for information. And based upon the feedback I have gotten at times from the vendors support center, they (the support center) has a equ! ally difficult time extracting U2 information from IBM. And it's not like there are selves full of books on U2 that I could turn to for research...at least not that I've seen. I can go to any major book store and find two or three selves of books on MS SQL and NONE on U2. This was particularly frustrating when I was first getting started with U2 four years ago. How could there be no books? Regardless of the bookstores I've visited over the years, the results has always been the same. I have since learned that, outside of spending thousands of dollars to go to vendor sponsored training classes (and receiving their training books), the best way to learn about things in this environment is through the listservs...word of mouth...trial and error. For one who has spent a considerable amount of time (with past systems I've supported) over the years plowing through technical manuals learning the nuances of how to best work with a product, being denied that information is very ! frustrating. The only consolation are listserves such as this one. The U2 industry is ill served by what I perceive to be an informational void relative to the product. And the tragedy is that this is a really good family of products. Very worthy of recognition along with the other major players in the RDBMS arena. Something should be done to free up this log-jam. And the first thing that would be really helpful is if IBM allowed both their direct customers AND the clients of those customers (such as myself), direct access to all aspects of the critical information contained upon their web site. Maybe then people will start writing books about U2. My two cents, Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I'll purchase two! One for each developer. -Cliff - Original Message - From: Brenda Price To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:17 AM Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance So would I. -Original Message- From: Norman Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. I certainly would be! I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer real books over electronic media. You can read words on paper anywhere, no batteries required. === Norman Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brake.com === A committee is twelve people doing the work of one. === --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Charles, I think there may be a larger potential audience than Tim is aware of. I believe some topical areas may sell faster than others. And all together, the total volume eventually sold of U2 books will not reach one-sixty-fourth the level of the pending Harry Potter book. Still, I predict that a fair number of U2 books could be sold. I've seen books for just about every other subject under the sun being published recently...some about total nonsense. Books that reach general circulation. The U2 environment is a thriving entity, with world wide scope, with many incredibly intelligent practitioners, whose engines (Universe and Unidata) are marketed by one of the largest IT firms in the world. Why can't one or two of these new books be U2 related? It would be nice to supplement any training that a new employee receives, with books related to the U2 environment. Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Barouch Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Robert, There is a firmly held belief that if books were available, that we, as a group, are too cheap to buy them. Clif Oliver (who ran this list for 9 years) used to edit a Pick series of O'Reilly. When I contacted Tim O'Reilly about a year ago, proposing new MV books, he said that he'd love to, but he can't afford to lose that kind of money. If you want books, we need to commit to publishers. I'm sure Brian would be willing to put up a sign-up sheet on U2UG.org, so we can submit a list of people who promise to buy at least one copy if a publisher will print a new book. I think a pre-order of 1K copies would get us some traction. Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. -- Charles Barouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Consulting (718) 762-3884x1 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
And just for amusement - both Tab and Hayden (at one time) ran their Accounting/Warehouse/Distribution/Subscription systems on Pick. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Banker Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:14 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I was looking at our bookshelf, we have the old series of soft cover manuals from V-Mark on UniVerse and then we have several books on PICK, none of which is new. Our PICK books are from 1985 to 1990 mostly published by TAB Professional and Reference Books, one is from Hayden Book Company; --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I would pony up for a U2 book. Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George R Smith Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:06 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Lets see I just spent 50.00 for a book on ajax, 80 for a book on real estate accounting, 50 for a book on netbeans. Of course, I would spend money on a book about Pick/U2/mvBasic on Cache. I WOULD however exclude one author even if they gave the book away - so let us see the authors first. george -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Barouch Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Robert, There is a firmly held belief that if books were available, that we, as a group, are too cheap to buy them. Clif Oliver (who ran this list for 9 years) used to edit a Pick series of O'Reilly. When I contacted Tim O'Reilly about a year ago, proposing new MV books, he said that he'd love to, but he can't afford to lose that kind of money. If you want books, we need to commit to publishers. I'm sure Brian would be willing to put up a sign-up sheet on U2UG.org, so we can submit a list of people who promise to buy at least one copy if a publisher will print a new book. I think a pre-order of 1K copies would get us some traction. Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. -- Charles Barouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Consulting (718) 762-3884x1 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
others. And all together, the total volume eventually sold of U2 books will not reach one-sixty-fourth the level of the pending Harry Potter book. Still, I predict that a fair A safe bet, since the initial U.S. printing is 12 million copies. === Norman Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brake.com === Two rules for success: 1. Don't tell everything you know. === --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Nancy this was discussed in the past at great length! To summarize: When the U2UG was formed, we petitioned for IBM to open up their knowledge sources. The problem is their vars, some of whom do not want their users to get access (and presumably show up how p*ss p**r their support may be). So a compromise was reached - if the var agrees, you can get access. Of course, some vars won't - but then you could always buy a single user UV from a sensible and capable var who will. that's probably worth the cost of the material anyway. it's also one of the reasons we started the U2UG knowledge base - and we're about to launch a Wiki on the same site. Brian Why doesn't IBM allow access to all information that would help users - we've already bought the product? Nancy Fisher Peninsula Truck Lines, Inc Auburn, Washington 253/929-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
The following eMail is not clear to me. IBM has comprehensive documentation on U2 available for free. What (specifically) is being sought that is not now available? --BIll -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Smith, Robert Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:14 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Good Morning, I really enjoyed reading this thread. I can honestly say that the diversity of experiences and people who comprise this listserv is amazing. And I've found the shared knowledge to be invaluable. As one who has not been immersed in the U2 environment for an extended period of time, there is one item that serves as a continued source of frustration. And it's exactly what Phil mentions below...sparse documentation. Not only for new stuff, but also for what I consider to be general items. More than once I have had a problem and through research, found that a PDF containing possibly pertinent information could be obtained from the IBM web site. Knowing it was there did me absolutely no good at all. Because my connection to the U2 world is through our software vendor, IBM has consistently refused to acknowledge/honor any request that I've made for information. And based upon the feedback I have gotten at times from the vendors support center, they (the support center) has a equ! ally difficult time extracting U2 information from IBM. And it's not like there are selves full of books on U2 that I could turn to for research...at least not that I've seen. I can go to any major book store and find two or three selves of books on MS SQL and NONE on U2. This was particularly frustrating when I was first getting started with U2 four years ago. How could there be no books? Regardless of the bookstores I've visited over the years, the results has always been the same. I have since learned that, outside of spending thousands of dollars to go to vendor sponsored training classes (and receiving their training books), the best way to learn about things in this environment is through the listservs...word of mouth...trial and error. For one who has spent a considerable amount of time (with past systems I've supported) over the years plowing through technical manuals learning the nuances of how to best work with a product, being denied that information is very ! frustrating. The only consolation are listserves such as this one. The U2 industry is ill served by what I perceive to be an informational void relative to the product. And the tragedy is that this is a really good family of products. Very worthy of recognition along with the other major players in the RDBMS arena. Something should be done to free up this log-jam. And the first thing that would be really helpful is if IBM allowed both their direct customers AND the clients of those customers (such as myself), direct access to all aspects of the critical information contained upon their web site. Maybe then people will start writing books about U2. My two cents, Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I may or may not... I have typically found the O'Reilly 'UNIX in a Nutshell' book short on material for the flavor of UNIX that I am working with that day. It certainly isn't intended to be a comprehensive guide, but by the same token, I can't find commands for a particular flavor that I know exist and are cross-platform. I fear the same would be true of a Multi-Value Database guide... Even if the scope were more narrowed to 'U2', I'd really be afraid that the information needed to adequately differentiate functionality in UniData from UniVerse would leave me wanting more. And that puts me back to where I am with the IBM documentation - wanting more specifics, examples, explanations, and without omitting valid command options. There's nothing more irritating than being told on a support call 'Oh yea, that would be the -zoo option', which cannot be found anywhere in any documentation produced by the vendor (IBM does not stand alone in this regard, unfortunately)... If Wally and Leroy co-conspired on such a thorough guide, I'd buy it, even though its scope would be limited to the U2 Multi-Value family. Regards, Bob Wyatt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Kubarych Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:27 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I would pony up for a U2 book. Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George R Smith Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:06 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Lets see I just spent 50.00 for a book on ajax, 80 for a book on real estate accounting, 50 for a book on netbeans. Of course, I would spend money on a book about Pick/U2/mvBasic on Cache. I WOULD however exclude one author even if they gave the book away - so let us see the authors first. george -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Barouch Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Robert, There is a firmly held belief that if books were available, that we, as a group, are too cheap to buy them. Clif Oliver (who ran this list for 9 years) used to edit a Pick series of O'Reilly. When I contacted Tim O'Reilly about a year ago, proposing new MV books, he said that he'd love to, but he can't afford to lose that kind of money. If you want books, we need to commit to publishers. I'm sure Brian would be willing to put up a sign-up sheet on U2UG.org, so we can submit a list of people who promise to buy at least one copy if a publisher will print a new book. I think a pre-order of 1K copies would get us some traction. Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. -- Charles Barouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Consulting (718) 762-3884x1 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
My var retrieved some info on setting up PDF from SB+ report writer for me one time. It was barely legible and not helpful. I was still glad to get it. VAR said they could try and get access for me but hadn't any success in the past... I never heard back. Still can't use HTML or PDF from (character based) SB+. I do recall hearing the VAR angle but my experience with our VAR didn't really support that. Nancy Fisher Peninsula Truck Lines, Inc Auburn, Washington 253/929-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Brian Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nancy this was discussed in the past at great length! To summarize: When the U2UG was formed, we petitioned for IBM to open up their knowledge sources. The problem is their vars, some of whom do not want their users to get access (and presumably show up how p*ss p**r their support may be). So a compromise was reached - if the var agrees, you can get access. Of course, some vars won't - but then you could always buy a single user UV from a sensible and capable var who will. that's probably worth the cost of the material anyway. it's also one of the reasons we started the U2UG knowledge base - and we're about to launch a Wiki on the same site. Brian Why doesn't IBM allow access to all information that would help users - we've already bought the product? Nancy Fisher Peninsula Truck Lines, Inc Auburn, Washington 253/929-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I think what he is asking for are tips and tricks, example programs, troubleshooting guides with real world scenarios, how to get data in and out of other database from the U2 side as well as from the other side with examples. Books written in a conversational manner not in techno geek I'm leaving out the stuff you should already know because I do. -Original Message- From: Brutzman, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:07 PM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance The following eMail is not clear to me. IBM has comprehensive documentation on U2 available for free. What (specifically) is being sought that is not now available? --BIll -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Smith, Robert Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:14 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Good Morning, I really enjoyed reading this thread. I can honestly say that the diversity of experiences and people who comprise this listserv is amazing. And I've found the shared knowledge to be invaluable. As one who has not been immersed in the U2 environment for an extended period of time, there is one item that serves as a continued source of frustration. And it's exactly what Phil mentions below...sparse documentation. Not only for new stuff, but also for what I consider to be general items. More than once I have had a problem and through research, found that a PDF containing possibly pertinent information could be obtained from the IBM web site. Knowing it was there did me absolutely no good at all. Because my connection to the U2 world is through our software vendor, IBM has consistently refused to acknowledge/honor any request that I've made for information. And based upon the feedback I have gotten at times from the vendors support center, they (the support center) has a equ! ally difficult time extracting U2 information from IBM. And it's not like there are selves full of books on U2 that I could turn to for research...at least not that I've seen. I can go to any major book store and find two or three selves of books on MS SQL and NONE on U2. This was particularly frustrating when I was first getting started with U2 four years ago. How could there be no books? Regardless of the bookstores I've visited over the years, the results has always been the same. I have since learned that, outside of spending thousands of dollars to go to vendor sponsored training classes (and receiving their training books), the best way to learn about things in this environment is through the listservs...word of mouth...trial and error. For one who has spent a considerable amount of time (with past systems I've supported) over the years plowing through technical manuals learning the nuances of how to best work with a product, being denied that information is very ! frustrating. The only consolation are listserves such as this one. The U2 industry is ill served by what I perceive to be an informational void relative to the product. And the tragedy is that this is a really good family of products. Very worthy of recognition along with the other major players in the RDBMS arena. Something should be done to free up this log-jam. And the first thing that would be really helpful is if IBM allowed both their direct customers AND the clients of those customers (such as myself), direct access to all aspects of the critical information contained upon their web site. Maybe then people will start writing books about U2. My two cents, Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Over the last few years I have tried on several occasions to get access to the knowledgebase through my var and have been told that they would see about getting it for me. Last time was about 6 months ago, I'm still waiting. Which tells me either they haven't tried to get it for me or there is a problem getting it through IBM. -Original Message- From: Nancy Fisher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:45 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance My var retrieved some info on setting up PDF from SB+ report writer for me one time. It was barely legible and not helpful. I was still glad to get it. VAR said they could try and get access for me but hadn't any success in the past... I never heard back. Still can't use HTML or PDF from (character based) SB+. I do recall hearing the VAR angle but my experience with our VAR didn't really support that. Nancy Fisher Peninsula Truck Lines, Inc Auburn, Washington 253/929-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Brian Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nancy this was discussed in the past at great length! To summarize: When the U2UG was formed, we petitioned for IBM to open up their knowledge sources. The problem is their vars, some of whom do not want their users to get access (and presumably show up how p*ss p**r their support may be). So a compromise was reached - if the var agrees, you can get access. Of course, some vars won't - but then you could always buy a single user UV from a sensible and capable var who will. that's probably worth the cost of the material anyway. it's also one of the reasons we started the U2UG knowledge base - and we're about to launch a Wiki on the same site. Brian Why doesn't IBM allow access to all information that would help users - we've already bought the product? Nancy Fisher Peninsula Truck Lines, Inc Auburn, Washington 253/929-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
The IBM U2 products are marketed as 'High performance, scalable information management environments for embedding in vertical applications.' See http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/dbservers.html IBM has a large reseller or value-added partnerships which they wish to preserve. One of the side-effects is the 'ownership' of a client; it is the resellers not IBM's. One way to manage this is to provide access to the knowledgebase only to the resellers and software houses, as they generate sales and also manage the database problems as it is the application which is being sold, not the database. This is a problem for in-house software development and orphans from software house collapses. This has always been a problem as long as I can remember - 15 years or more. And it is the reason that I would never recommend in-house software development with any U2 products. You will always be flying blind. There was some chat some months back about creating a free virtual image of U2 with some supplied software etc. etc. It must always be remembered that U2 is not open-source or a community built product. It is a proprietary database product owned and developed by IBM. If IBM do not and will not recognize the in-house development and consultant markets, then move on. There are massively larger databases and more in number using MySQL, Oracle and MS-SQL. Other developers seem to be able to use these products and produce reasonable applications. On the other hand, I have found that I can produce and manage a U2 database simpler and cheaper than others; but not because of the MV factor. It is the ability to write complex business rules and processes directly in the one environment (with the database structure) that I find invaluable. But alias, as the increase of BPEL and such high-end tools come available for other database products, even this feature of U2 is starting to wear thin. My $1.22 + tax input. Cheers, David Murray P.S. The direct relationship between BPEL and SB+ is so similar that it is scary, but no development by IBM of BPEL on U2 seems to be on the cards. .learn and do .excel and share -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy Fisher Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:03 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Why doesn't IBM allow access to all information that would help users - we've already bought the product? --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
There are other ways of getting PDF output. SBClient 5.4.1 has a lot of PDF options, but it still is a bother. Some of our users set up PDF printers that capture the aux output as PDF. You could use the system control Output Redir Proc On and Output Redir Proc Off to add PDF output options to your report, even from character (though it still uses SBClient for file transfer) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy Fisher Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:45 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance My var retrieved some info on setting up PDF from SB+ report writer for me one time. It was barely legible and not helpful. I was still glad to get it. VAR said they could try and get access for me but hadn't any success in the past... I never heard back. Still can't use HTML or PDF from (character based) SB+. I do recall hearing the VAR angle but my experience with our VAR didn't really support that. Nancy Fisher Peninsula Truck Lines, Inc Auburn, Washington 253/929-2040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Brian Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
So what you are saying is that a shop like ours that has over the years developed everything in-house and the applications are specifically geared to our business and can be changed as our business changes is out of luck when it comes to getting into the knowledgebase. Just because we don't buy an application from anyone we are excluded from something that might help us build it better and faster. -Original Message- From: David Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:10 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance And it is the reason that I would never recommend in-house software development with any U2 products. You will always be flying blind. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Ditto... Almost everybody using U2 is doing in-house software development. We are the opposite of blind because we can see all of the source code that we write. --Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jerry Banker Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:55 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance So what you are saying is that a shop like ours that has over the years developed everything in-house and the applications are specifically geared to our business and can be changed as our business changes is out of luck when it comes to getting into the knowledgebase. Just because we don't buy an application from anyone we are excluded from something that might help us build it better and faster. -Original Message- From: David Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:10 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance And it is the reason that I would never recommend in-house software development with any U2 products. You will always be flying blind. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Personally I have never felt the need for a MV book for myself - I have always found the u2 manuals and white papers very helpful for learning any new functionality. I have a few books on .net, php, linux etc but again I rarely look at them as the manuals and online help are plentiful. My 2pennies Symeon. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Banker Sent: 18 July 2007 15:04 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance AMEN!! -Original Message- From: Smith, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:14 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Good Morning, I really enjoyed reading this thread. I can honestly say that the diversity of experiences and people who comprise this listserv is amazing. And I've found the shared knowledge to be invaluable. As one who has not been immersed in the U2 environment for an extended period of time, there is one item that serves as a continued source of frustration. And it's exactly what Phil mentions below...sparse documentation. Not only for new stuff, but also for what I consider to be general items. More than once I have had a problem and through research, found that a PDF containing possibly pertinent information could be obtained from the IBM web site. Knowing it was there did me absolutely no good at all. Because my connection to the U2 world is through our software vendor, IBM has consistently refused to acknowledge/honor any request that I've made for information. And based upon the feedback I have gotten at times from the vendors support center, they (the support center) has a equ! ally difficult time extracting U2 information from IBM. And it's not like there are selves full of books on U2 that I could turn to for research...at least not that I've seen. I can go to any major book store and find two or three selves of books on MS SQL and NONE on U2. This was particularly frustrating when I was first getting started with U2 four years ago. How could there be no books? Regardless of the bookstores I've visited over the years, the results has always been the same. I have since learned that, outside of spending thousands of dollars to go to vendor sponsored training classes (and receiving their training books), the best way to learn about things in this environment is through the listservs...word of mouth...trial and error. For one who has spent a considerable amount of time (with past systems I've supported) over the years plowing through technical manuals learning the nuances of how to best work with a product, being denied that information is very ! frustrating. The only consolation are listserves such as this one. The U2 industry is ill served by what I perceive to be an informational void relative to the product. And the tragedy is that this is a really good family of products. Very worthy of recognition along with the other major players in the RDBMS arena. Something should be done to free up this log-jam. And the first thing that would be really helpful is if IBM allowed both their direct customers AND the clients of those customers (such as myself), direct access to all aspects of the critical information contained upon their web site. Maybe then people will start writing books about U2. My two cents, Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Jerry, Do you have currently have access to the knowledgebase? It is possible (as I have had access before), but access by an end-user seems to be the exception rather the norm. Is anyone from IBM in this mail list want to comment? Cheers, David Murray .learn and do .excel and share -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Banker Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:55 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance So what you are saying is that a shop like ours that has over the years developed everything in-house and the applications are specifically geared to our business and can be changed as our business changes is out of luck when it comes to getting into the knowledgebase. Just because we don't buy an application from anyone we are excluded from something that might help us build it better and faster. -Original Message- From: David Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:10 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance And it is the reason that I would never recommend in-house software development with any U2 products. You will always be flying blind. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Bill, I am sorry if what I stated was inappropriate. I was replying to a comment about the lack of access to the IBM U2 knowledgebase and other privileged/restricted information to end-user in-house developers. Cheers, David Murray .learn and do .excel and share -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:43 PM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Ditto... Almost everybody using U2 is doing in-house software development. We are the opposite of blind because we can see all of the source code that we write. --Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jerry Banker Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:55 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance So what you are saying is that a shop like ours that has over the years developed everything in-house and the applications are specifically geared to our business and can be changed as our business changes is out of luck when it comes to getting into the knowledgebase. Just because we don't buy an application from anyone we are excluded from something that might help us build it better and faster. -Original Message- From: David Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:10 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance And it is the reason that I would never recommend in-house software development with any U2 products. You will always be flying blind. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Yes and no, yes to anything without a key next to it, which is usually nothing technical or helpful. The frustration comes from getting emails directly from IBM saying there is a white paper or tech bulletin that pertains to U2 with some pretty useful information, but when I follow the link to the paper, it is restricted and has that little key next to it. No matter how many different ways I log in I can't get to it. And, of course, I get an email from IBM that says I just tried to access something I'm not allowed to look at. It's not like I am depriving my var from anything. We buy the licenses to UV from them, have them set up our systems, and if there is a system problem we usually call them but that is the extent of our relationship. They don't sell a software product we can use. As a matter-of-fact we are a Linux/Unix shop and they deal mostly with Windows. -Original Message- From: David Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:09 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Jerry, Do you have currently have access to the knowledgebase? It is possible (as I have had access before), but access by an end-user seems to be the exception rather the norm. Is anyone from IBM in this mail list want to comment? Cheers, David Murray .learn and do .excel and share -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Banker Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:55 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance So what you are saying is that a shop like ours that has over the years developed everything in-house and the applications are specifically geared to our business and can be changed as our business changes is out of luck when it comes to getting into the knowledgebase. Just because we don't buy an application from anyone we are excluded from something that might help us build it better and faster. -Original Message- From: David Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:10 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance And it is the reason that I would never recommend in-house software development with any U2 products. You will always be flying blind. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Since I have sent this info before, I do not want to be repeating myself, but there are always new folks on the list, so first I'll pass this along-- If you do get a new person in your shop and want a short overview to get them started, check out my little Trilogy at http://www.tincat-group.com/mv/trilogy.html [I have to fix some javascript somewhere, so it might be irritating go from one book to the next] When I visited with InterSystems folks, one of them told me this was a big help. I did at least as much QA on the content as done with O'Reilly books, I suspect (these are actualhy printed in hard copy on business card sized cards, so the web was after-the-fact and not nicely implemented, by me, I'll admit). I, too, researched the market for books and decided to do short book chapters in blog format instead last year. That was not O'Reilly type content, however. My two-year-old assessment was the same as Tim O'Reilly's, that I couldn't afford to lose that much. 1000 pre-sold copies might make a self-published book worthwhile, but when it comes to meaty content that is not just introductory info that could be found in U2 manuals, on how to write U2-based software, for example, each MV product really does client/server and other important aspects differently. If you show how every MV database provider does it then most folks will only care about 1/nth of the book, perhaps not enough to buy it. Since U2 has the bulk of the market at this point, it could be U2-specific with one part UniData, one UniVerse, and another using the shared commands and API's, with perhaps a 4th section on integrating with various 3rd party tools. This gives you a market of those who are U2 customers who write software or integrate software with U2. How many would that be? Any guesses? Narrow that down further to those who think they need to get more information than what is already comning at them from many directions. Narrow that to those who like to learn by reading. Narrow further to those who have either company or personal dollars to spend. Narrow that to those who are aware that they could buy such a book. Narrow that down to those who are able to get that purchase to the top of their to do list and make work of ordering it. I would be interested in seeing estimates attached to the points in that prospective customer funnel if anyone is game to give it a try. This is overly simplistic, but...If you take a relatively high number, such as a profit of $5.00/book and the self-publishing author gets all of that, and if it takes the author 1 year to get the book written, edited, published and distributed (very difficult to do it in less time, I suspect), then 10,000 books need to be sold for $50,000 for that year of work. Did we end up with 10,000 at the end of that funnel? --dawn -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. Take and give some delight today On 7/18/07, Smith, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles, I think there may be a larger potential audience than Tim is aware of. I believe some topical areas may sell faster than others. And all together, the total volume eventually sold of U2 books will not reach one-sixty-fourth the level of the pending Harry Potter book. Still, I predict that a fair number of U2 books could be sold. I've seen books for just about every other subject under the sun being published recently...some about total nonsense. Books that reach general circulation. The U2 environment is a thriving entity, with world wide scope, with many incredibly intelligent practitioners, whose engines (Universe and Unidata) are marketed by one of the largest IT firms in the world. Why can't one or two of these new books be U2 related? It would be nice to supplement any training that a new employee receives, with books related to the U2 environment. Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Barouch Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Robert, There is a firmly held belief that if books were available, that we, as a group, are too cheap to buy them. Clif Oliver (who ran this list for 9 years) used to edit a Pick series of O'Reilly. When I contacted Tim O'Reilly about a year ago, proposing new MV books, he said that he'd love to, but he can't afford to lose that kind of money. If you want books, we need to commit to publishers. I'm sure Brian would be willing to put up a sign-up sheet on U2UG.org, so we can submit a list of people who promise to buy at least one copy if a publisher will print a new book. I think a pre-order of 1K copies would get us some traction. Are we willing to spend $15 to $50 a piece for a new U2 book? I don't think they'll have trouble finding willing writers. -- Charles Barouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Consulting (718) 762-3884x1 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mats Carlid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman skrev:
At which point, you hit my hobbyhorse ... In the real world ... -
relational database theory has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do
with the real world. It's an exercise in pure maths.
And You hit my hobbyhorse or rather one of them :-) ...
RDMS theory is absolutely not pure maths!
So you'd say it's applied maths? Getting off-topic, but I've never
really understood the difference (as in how it is defined) between pure
and applied. I know you can look at a problem and know which is which,
but how do you define it?
In pure maths a relation is the set of tuples (ordered lists of n
elements {e1,e2,e3...en } where the first element e1 belongs to a set
S1 and e2 to set S2 etc.
and there are no limitations on the nature of theses sets.
Not even that the elements must be atomic - in contrary they may be
sets themselves
or lists ( like our multivalues ) or even relations ( like our
associations ).
Pure maths doesn't limit the nature of the defining sets at all -
a set consisiting of my car, the north pole,the number pi and the set
of all real numbers is valid.
Thats a long way from rdbms integers,date, fixed length strings etc..
.
The explicit goal of Codds rules ( at least in the paper where I read them)
is to limit this to something that is possible to handle on
computer hardware (of the 70-ies!?) as well as allowing a relative
easy formulation of select criteria,
constraints etc.
From an u2 or pick view Codd choose to include unecessary contraints on
relations
for the RDBMS,
But that doesnt make it more or less mathematical than the pick model..
Actually, I'd say Codd made the RDBMS a damn sight *more* mathematical
than the Pick model :-)
The relational model is defined in terms of axioms, constraints, and -
as I pointed out - a flat-out BAN on empirical testing in that the
users building their system on top of an RDBMS are presented with a
black box. That places it extremely firmly in the world of Maths.
The Pick model is far more scientific, as it actually makes some attempt
to model reality.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the
thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man
lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998
Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Eastwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes And just for amusement - both Tab and Hayden (at one time) ran their Accounting/Warehouse/Distribution/Subscription systems on Pick. Mark As did (maybe still do) I believe O'Reilly ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Banker Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:14 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I was looking at our bookshelf, we have the old series of soft cover manuals from V-Mark on UniVerse and then we have several books on PICK, none of which is new. Our PICK books are from 1985 to 1990 mostly published by TAB Professional and Reference Books, one is from Hayden Book Company; --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
If I recall correctly (and I might not), you can lobby your VAR to let all of their customers have access to the knowledgebase and IBM will open it up to them. (Good luck with that my Datatel-customer friends, although maybe it has happened and I'm behind the times) smiles. --dawn On 7/18/07, Jerry Banker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and no, yes to anything without a key next to it, which is usually nothing technical or helpful. The frustration comes from getting emails directly from IBM saying there is a white paper or tech bulletin that pertains to U2 with some pretty useful information, but when I follow the link to the paper, it is restricted and has that little key next to it. No matter how many different ways I log in I can't get to it. And, of course, I get an email from IBM that says I just tried to access something I'm not allowed to look at. It's not like I am depriving my var from anything. We buy the licenses to UV from them, have them set up our systems, and if there is a system problem we usually call them but that is the extent of our relationship. They don't sell a software product we can use. As a matter-of-fact we are a Linux/Unix shop and they deal mostly with Windows. -Original Message- From: David Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:09 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Jerry, Do you have currently have access to the knowledgebase? It is possible (as I have had access before), but access by an end-user seems to be the exception rather the norm. Is anyone from IBM in this mail list want to comment? Cheers, David Murray .learn and do .excel and share -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Banker Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:55 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance So what you are saying is that a shop like ours that has over the years developed everything in-house and the applications are specifically geared to our business and can be changed as our business changes is out of luck when it comes to getting into the knowledgebase. Just because we don't buy an application from anyone we are excluded from something that might help us build it better and faster. -Original Message- From: David Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:10 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance And it is the reason that I would never recommend in-house software development with any U2 products. You will always be flying blind. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Because the results are not (scientifically) reproducible. (Well, they are for that one implementation...) Because data storage is part of the Pick data model, we can be confident that benchmark results are valid across all (similar?) implementations. Because relational forbids knowing anything about the implementation, any benchmark is valid for that one configuration only. Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: Geoffrey Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 July 2007 19:47 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Read Codd and Date's rules. Can't remember which, but one of them says the database user is not permitted to know how the database stores the data. In other words, empirical testing is FORBIDDEN. Seeing as empirical testing is *the* sine qua non of science, relational databases are, BY DEFINITION, totally unscientific. So, if you want a benchmark, relational database theory explicitly says No way, Jose! !!! How does not being able to know how the data is stored prohibit empirical testing? As long as you can provide inputs to a system and retrieve outputs you can perform empirical tests. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
On one hand, if the purpose of exposing this data is for internal consumption only, then some sort of proprietary format would be perfectly acceptable. In fact, we are using a sort of proprietary format for communication. The problem with this approach is that when you begin dealing with outside organizations, your proprietary way of communicating is no longer that clever. This is when using a standard protocol, such as SOAP, really has value. To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. On an unrelated note, we interviewed a .Net developer that worked for a company that also had a UniData shop in house. He was telling us about this custom interface they used in communcations. He didn't know anything about it's origins, except that you had variable length records delimited by funny looking characters. I asked him if the characters were ASCII 253, 254 and 255 characters, and he said in fact that he thought they were. The moral of the story, not really sure, I just thought it was kind of funny. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. snip --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I don't have any idea what you are trying to say. A database should be a black box. You put data in and pull data out. The less you have to know about the details of what goes on inside, the better. You can easily benchmark two black box systems that perform the same function (with unknown implementations), and the results are totally relevant as a comparison of those two systems. Anthony Youngman wrote: Because the results are not (scientifically) reproducible. (Well, they are for that one implementation...) Because data storage is part of the Pick data model, we can be confident that benchmark results are valid across all (similar?) implementations. Because relational forbids knowing anything about the implementation, any benchmark is valid for that one configuration only. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Anthony W. Youngman skrev:
At which point, you hit my hobbyhorse ... In the real world ... -
relational database theory has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do
with the real world. It's an exercise in pure maths.
And You hit my hobbyhorse or rather one of them :-) ...
RDMS theory is absolutely not pure maths!
In pure maths a relation is the set of tuples (ordered lists of n
elements {e1,e2,e3...en }
where the first element e1 belongs to a set S1 and e2 to set S2 etc.
and there are no limitations on the nature of theses sets.
Not even that the elements must be atomic - in contrary they may be sets
themselves
or lists ( like our multivalues ) or even relations ( like our
associations ).
Pure maths doesn't limit the nature of the defining sets at all -
a set consisiting of my car, the north pole,the number pi and the set of
all real numbers is valid.
Thats a long way from rdbms integers,date, fixed length strings etc..
.
The explicit goal of Codds rules ( at least in the paper where I read them)
is to limit this to something that is possible to handle on
computer hardware (of the 70-ies!?) as well as allowing a relative
easy formulation of select criteria,
constraints etc.
From an u2 or pick view Codd choose to include unecessary contraints on
relations
for the RDBMS,
But that doesnt make it more or less mathematical than the pick model..
In my maths class we only had this definiton of an relation and then
emediately
went on to study relations where the all the attributes where real
numbers so the
general defintion may be to much even for mathematicians to cope with
-- mats
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
To me that is foolish. As a programmer you need to know how that database functions so you can program to its strengths and try to avoid its weaknesses. -Original Message- From: Geoffrey Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I don't have any idea what you are trying to say. A database should be a black box. You put data in and pull data out. The less you have to know about the details of what goes on inside, the better. You can easily benchmark two black box systems that perform the same function (with unknown implementations), and the results are totally relevant as a comparison of those two systems. Anthony Youngman wrote: Because the results are not (scientifically) reproducible. (Well, they are for that one implementation...) Because data storage is part of the Pick data model, we can be confident that benchmark results are valid across all (similar?) implementations. Because relational forbids knowing anything about the implementation, any benchmark is valid for that one configuration only. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I do agree that it can help with benchmarks to lock into some givens and go from there, but even choosing something as common as SOAP gets you into the SOAP vs REST discussion (e.g. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3005). I can imagine doing benchmarks where you say given these technologies, what else works well with them but would prefer to also have benchmarks that leave more open. Starting with user requirements and measuring a full range of quality requirements, including various performance and scalability measures would keep those technology wars out of the testing. It is the fact that SQL, an industry standard, is tightly coupled to industry benchmarks that we are even having this discussion. How can you get to something better if you lock into a specific technology or approach when doing benchmarks? That said, at this point in time we could at least do tests with TCP/IP as a given, I suspect, then tests with http, and then with SOAP and REST and all such information would be helpful. The other thing I found was that most of the really good benchmark testing is done by large companies in their RD areas. I would guess that companies like IBM really do know the various performance and scalability comparisons among their own products and likely those of competitors too. If they do not, then large database users have done such testing. That information doesn't leak out so easily, however. --dawn On 7/17/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On one hand, if the purpose of exposing this data is for internal consumption only, then some sort of proprietary format would be perfectly acceptable. In fact, we are using a sort of proprietary format for communication. The problem with this approach is that when you begin dealing with outside organizations, your proprietary way of communicating is no longer that clever. This is when using a standard protocol, such as SOAP, really has value. To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. On an unrelated note, we interviewed a .Net developer that worked for a company that also had a UniData shop in house. He was telling us about this custom interface they used in communcations. He didn't know anything about it's origins, except that you had variable length records delimited by funny looking characters. I asked him if the characters were ASCII 253, 254 and 255 characters, and he said in fact that he thought they were. The moral of the story, not really sure, I just thought it was kind of funny. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. snip --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I understand your desire for a black box. The problem arises when your black box is upgraded. I've come across anecdotes of eg Oracle upgrades, where new software has resulted in a markedly slower system, because Oracle changed their data storage, or indexing, or something, and all the app's assumptions suddenly became wrong. That, basically, is the problem with the black box approach. And the relational model says you're not allowed to do it any other way. You're not allowed to look behind the curtain. In other words, you're not allowed to empirically test the WHOLE system (ie inside the black box). At least with MV, while we may not care to look behind the curtain, we are welcome to do so, and to prove that we have the fastest possible implementation. As a scientist by training I *DO* *NOT* like being told look, just use it, it works. You don't need to understand it. All too often I end up getting badly bitten when that happens... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: Geoffrey Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 July 2007 15:58 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I don't have any idea what you are trying to say. A database should be a black box. You put data in and pull data out. The less you have to know about the details of what goes on inside, the better. You can easily benchmark two black box systems that perform the same function (with unknown implementations), and the results are totally relevant as a comparison of those two systems. Anthony Youngman wrote: Because the results are not (scientifically) reproducible. (Well, they are for that one implementation...) Because data storage is part of the Pick data model, we can be confident that benchmark results are valid across all (similar?) implementations. Because relational forbids knowing anything about the implementation, any benchmark is valid for that one configuration only. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. snip --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
This is one of the reasons that Cache is able to drum up some business from shops that are using Universe, UniData, etc... Cache is very forward thinking, and now with their mvbasic support, a viable option for those of us using MV databases and want to use newer technologies to integrate with the database. Cache's native web service support is very cool, not to mention the .Net and java integration. This is the direction IBM needs to be heading in with U2 if they want to stay a viable option. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. snip --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
These are interesting comments considering all the tools available with IBM U2 and the many things they have in the hopper. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:49 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance This is one of the reasons that Cache is able to drum up some business from shops that are using Universe, UniData, etc... Cache is very forward thinking, and now with their mvbasic support, a viable option for those of us using MV databases and want to use newer technologies to integrate with the database. Cache's native web service support is very cool, not to mention the .Net and java integration. This is the direction IBM needs to be heading in with U2 if they want to stay a viable option. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. snip --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
On 7/17/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the reasons that Cache is able to drum up some business from shops that are using Universe, UniData, etc... Yes. I have been a loyal U2 professional for many years and thought I would end up selecting U2 for a new application. I did an assessment, a scan of available databases and related development strategies, including some SQL-DBMS tools (only needing to convince myself, so no good data to report) and felt that Cache' was the better way to go, even if there is still a risk involved in doing so. It's a business decision and I, too, suspect that there will be others headed this direction in the future after doing their own assessments. Cache is very forward thinking, Yes, and the entire company can proclaim the benefits of using what is considered by the industry to be non-standard database management--that understanding can be pervasive in the company as they are not selling a legacy ;-) RDBMS, such as DB2, as their more standard database solution. and now with their mvbasic support, a viable option for those of us using MV databases and want to use newer technologies to integrate with the database. Agreed. Cache's native web service support is very cool, Their AJAX tool is wicked cool, now that I have it working (I wasn't exactly a quick study on the previously undocumented integration of AJAX and MV, but getting there) not to mention the .Net and java integration. Their Java integration, which I will not be using (no need when you can use Java-like classes with MV BASIC methods -- how cool is that!) looks really cutting edge and really shows off the benefits of using a database with less of an impedance mismatch between Java and the DBMS. They really seem to be playing their hand with this one, although the Java community, like PHP and others is still primarily working with RDBMS tools. This is the direction IBM needs to be heading in with U2 if they want to stay a viable option. Yes. Cache' might be good for giving IBM a boost in their strategic thinking about the product. It must be difficult, however, when DB2 is the premiere IBM database (or is treated as such). I am not sure how they are going to have the type of resources it would take to leap frog Cache'. Just my two cents. --dawn Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Leroy, I know IBM are implementing much of these new technologies with regard to U2. The problem that I see is that it may be there, but a lot of the people in the list cannot find information on how to use it either because this information * does not exist * exists but in very basic examples which do not show a 'real' business solution, e.g. order processing or something similar * exists but they do not have access to it .e.g. IBM Knowledgebase... Those are the issues as I see it. How to tie up the Webservices,Soap,XML schemas etc, triggers, and existing BASIC subroutines. And what is good and bad practice. Cheers, Phil. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LeRoy Dreyfuss Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:45 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance These are interesting comments considering all the tools available with IBM U2 and the many things they have in the hopper. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:49 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance This is one of the reasons that Cache is able to drum up some business from shops that are using Universe, UniData, etc... Cache is very forward thinking, and now with their mvbasic support, a viable option for those of us using MV databases and want to use newer technologies to integrate with the database. Cache's native web service support is very cool, not to mention the .Net and java integration. This is the direction IBM needs to be heading in with U2 if they want to stay a viable option. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. snip --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Interesting thread. Even though I don't really have much to do with UniVerse these days, I still enjoy reading (and learning from) these forums. I've been a long time user of both UniVerse and SQL Server. Developed many things using one, the other or both db's as data sources. I would say that if your a Java shop, go with UniVerse, if your using .Net go with SQL Server. It's just too easy to work with data in the .Net Sql Server world. Not quite so easy to go .net - UniVerse. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
--Not quite so easy to go .net - UniVerse. Well put. This is one of the issues we are running into. We are a .Net shop, and going from .Net to UV has been a challenge to say the least. The primary issue being the overhead associated with access the data via uo.net. Performance just isn't good enough. Thanks, Nick Cipollina CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Phil: A quick example is I'm trying to find out how their Connection Pool license works. Noone seems to know nor can I find out how this integrates with mv.Net using UO.NET as the connection. I can't find out how to configure a connection pool, monitor the connections, or anything else. [sigh] :-( Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:56 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Leroy, I know IBM are implementing much of these new technologies with regard to U2. The problem that I see is that it may be there, but a lot of the people in the list cannot find information on how to use it either because this information * does not exist * exists but in very basic examples which do not show a 'real' business solution, e.g. order processing or something similar * exists but they do not have access to it .e.g. IBM Knowledgebase... Those are the issues as I see it. How to tie up the Webservices,Soap,XML schemas etc, triggers, and existing BASIC subroutines. And what is good and bad practice. Cheers, Phil. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LeRoy Dreyfuss Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:45 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance These are interesting comments considering all the tools available with IBM U2 and the many things they have in the hopper. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:49 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance This is one of the reasons that Cache is able to drum up some business from shops that are using Universe, UniData, etc... Cache is very forward thinking, and now with their mvbasic support, a viable option for those of us using MV databases and want to use newer technologies to integrate with the database. Cache's native web service support is very cool, not to mention the .Net and java integration. This is the direction IBM needs to be heading in with U2 if they want to stay a viable option. Thanks, Nick Cipollina --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Enroll for one of the U2 University events? The detailed agenda is posted on the web site, now. Cheers |---+-| |Wally Terhune |Register today for the premier U2| |U2 Support Architect |technical event! | | | | |4700 South Syracuse Street | | |Denver, CO 80237 | | |Tel: (303) 773-7969 T/L | | |656-7969 | | |Mobile: (303) 807-6222 | | |Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |http://www.ibm.com/software/dat| | |a/u2 | | |---+-| phil walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] z To Sent by: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc stserver.u2ug.org Subject RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 07/17/2007 05:56 2005 performance PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] er.u2ug.org Leroy, I know IBM are implementing much of these new technologies with regard to U2. The problem that I see is that it may be there, but a lot of the people in the list cannot find information on how to use it either because this information * does not exist * exists but in very basic examples which do not show a 'real' business solution, e.g. order processing or something similar * exists but they do not have access to it .e.g. IBM Knowledgebase... Those are the issues as I see it. How to tie up the Webservices,Soap,XML schemas etc, triggers, and existing BASIC subroutines. And what is good and bad practice. Cheers, Phil. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LeRoy Dreyfuss Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:45 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance These are interesting comments considering all the tools available with IBM U2 and the many things they have in the hopper. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:49 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance This is one of the reasons that Cache is able to drum up some business from shops that are using Universe, UniData, etc... Cache is very forward thinking, and now with their mvbasic support, a viable option for those of us using MV databases and want to use newer technologies to integrate with the database. Cache's native web service support is very cool, not to mention the .Net and java integration. This is the direction IBM needs to be heading in with U2 if they want to stay a viable option. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other dbms/development environments have on the web Phil (my 2c) Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Bill, If you are using MV.NET, it has its own connection pooling which is pretty well documented. That being the case, you don't even need to use the UO.NET built in connection pooling. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:49 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Phil: A quick example is I'm trying to find out how their Connection Pool license works. Noone seems to know nor can I find out how this integrates with mv.Net using UO.NET as the connection. I can't find out how to configure a connection pool, monitor the connections, or anything else. [sigh] :-( Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:56 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Leroy, I know IBM are implementing much of these new technologies with regard to U2. The problem that I see is that it may be there, but a lot of the people in the list cannot find information on how to use it either because this information * does not exist * exists but in very basic examples which do not show a 'real' business solution, e.g. order processing or something similar * exists but they do not have access to it .e.g. IBM Knowledgebase... Those are the issues as I see it. How to tie up the Webservices,Soap,XML schemas etc, triggers, and existing BASIC subroutines. And what is good and bad practice. Cheers, Phil. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LeRoy Dreyfuss Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:45 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance These are interesting comments considering all the tools available with IBM U2 and the many things they have in the hopper. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:49 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance This is one of the reasons that Cache is able to drum up some business from shops that are using Universe, UniData, etc... Cache is very forward thinking, and now with their mvbasic support, a viable option for those of us using MV databases and want to use newer technologies to integrate with the database. Cache's native web service support is very cool, not to mention the .Net and java integration. This is the direction IBM needs to be heading in with U2 if they want to stay a viable option. Thanks, Nick Cipollina --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Wally, Two issues with this... * Firstly, where are they held and what costs are involved * Secondly, while Microsoft do offer courses for training which do cost money and held in our part of the world., there is also a vast library of information on the internet which people can go through and educate themselves. This is freely available and easy to get access to...unlike the U2 Knowledge base which is harder to get at than plans for a nuclear weapon. This availability and ease is probably one reason why Microsoft continually are making in roads into the database arena. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wally Terhune Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 2:31 p.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Enroll for one of the U2 University events? The detailed agenda is posted on the web site, now. Cheers |---+--- --| |Wally Terhune |Register today for the premier U2 | |U2 Support Architect |technical event! | | | | |4700 South Syracuse Street | | |Denver, CO 80237 | | |Tel: (303) 773-7969 T/L | | |656-7969 | | |Mobile: (303) 807-6222 | | |Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |http://www.ibm.com/software/dat| | |a/u2 | | |---+--- --| phil walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] z To Sent by: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc stserver.u2ug.org Subject RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 07/17/2007 05:56 2005 performance PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] er.u2ug.org Leroy, I know IBM are implementing much of these new technologies with regard to U2. The problem that I see is that it may be there, but a lot of the people in the list cannot find information on how to use it either because this information * does not exist * exists but in very basic examples which do not show a 'real' business solution, e.g. order processing or something similar * exists but they do not have access to it .e.g. IBM Knowledgebase... Those are the issues as I see it. How to tie up the Webservices,Soap,XML schemas etc, triggers, and existing BASIC subroutines. And what is good and bad practice. Cheers, Phil. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LeRoy Dreyfuss Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:45 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance These are interesting comments considering all the tools available with IBM U2 and the many things they have in the hopper. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:49 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance This is one of the reasons that Cache is able to drum up some business from shops that are using Universe, UniData, etc... Cache is very forward thinking, and now with their mvbasic support, a viable option for those of us using MV databases and want to use newer technologies to integrate with the database. Cache's native web service support is very cool, not to mention the .Net and java integration. This is the direction IBM needs to be heading in with U2 if they want to stay a viable option. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Nick, Here, here to your following statements To me, this is part of the problem that we have in the MV world. We look at how things are being done elsewhere and say, Pick does it better, we aren't going to do that. The problem with this approach is that everyone else is adopting these standards and using them. We are going to be left further behind if we don't start using some of the technologies available to us. . And this is where this list breaks down in that a lot of the new features IBM are building into the product are not used/discussed and the documentation is VERY, VERY sparse. So people like myself and a few others are left to trial and error techniques to implement these new technologies because we HAVE to talk to the outside world and people expect some sort of standard method to do this. Because of this approach we take a lot longer to do something which I am sure is reasonably easy if one was to have good quality examples available like most other
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Nick: We've developed an application in .NET using mv.NET to connect to UniData and the connectivity is screaming fast. A complete .NET developer does all our development and we do all the dbms design and implementation. The dbms development and connectivity gets done in no-time while the .NET takes quite a bit of time and requires a lot of patience. :-) Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Cipollina Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:29 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance --Not quite so easy to go .net - UniVerse. Well put. This is one of the issues we are running into. We are a .Net shop, and going from .Net to UV has been a challenge to say the least. The primary issue being the overhead associated with access the data via uo.net. Performance just isn't good enough. Thanks, Nick Cipollina --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Bill, mv.NET from BlueFinity would be using standard UniObjects and as such, could not take advantage of connection pooling from U2 (CP). There may be licensing implications with U2 that require one to acquire CP licenses to use mv.NET, though. In any case, it is a simple matter of changing the license configuration (and paying the appropriate fee, of course) of either UniData or UniVerse to enable it. If you find the documentation from IBM not exactly what you need in terms of using CP in your application, there is a white paper on their (IBM U2) Website at: ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/data/u2/pubs/whitepapers/ibmu2-microsoftnet.pdf You might find the white paper useful. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:49 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Phil: A quick example is I'm trying to find out how their Connection Pool license works. Noone seems to know nor can I find out how this integrates with mv.Net using UO.NET as the connection. I can't find out how to configure a connection pool, monitor the connections, or anything else. [sigh] :-( Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
David Jordan wrote: Tony One thing, and I may be wrong, is that MV.Net is about accessing the database directly. This puts Multivalue in the same bucket as other RDBMS in performance. David, mv.NET is a suite of three libraries, and there's more than one way to run a program. Specific to your comments, we can do this: mvAccountObject.CallProg(BASIC.program.name,arg1,arg2,...) and that will execute any BASIC subroutine on the server just like any server-side BASIC program doing a call. This is similar to a UniObjects UniSubroutine call. We can also Execute a TCL command, capturing and returning data just as we do from server-side BASIC. This sort of code would only be used where a client-side interface is required. Relational databases can accept command-line queries just like MV can, and we'd really be after server-side numbers anyway. But when people say how fast is it, they might want to know so that they can extract data into some remote client - it wouldn't be good to have fast server numbers and poor data transmission numbers, or in the case of QM to not be accessible (natively) via ODBC/OLEDB at all. Since every MV platform has different external interfaces, I'm suggesting mv.NET as one possible standard by which all MV platforms can participate in client-interface testing like this. An area of efficiency and capability of U2 is in the Basic programs within U2. We need to access those from .Net as we would a stored procedure in SQL Server. A stored procedure in SQL Server is defined with: CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[ProcName] (params...) AS INSERT INTO ... And then they do this: SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(ProcName,connection); cmd.CommandType = System.Data.CommandType.StoredProcedure; ... // set parameters rows = cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); We use BASIC to OPEN and WRITE files as our stored procedures. And we can call to BASIC subroutines using the same ADO.NET syntax that's used to call a stored procedure in an RDBMS. That is, the mvCommand class implements the same IDBCommand interface as the SqlCommand class. So we can do this: mvCommand cmd = new mvCommand(ProgName,connection); cmd.CommandType = System.Data.CommandType.StoredProcedure; ... // set parameters rows = cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); Look familiar? That can be coded so that a single test doesn't even know whether the data is coming from MV or relational - it's the exact same code. If you don't use the Basic programs for the business rules in a .Net application one loses a lot of the advantages of U2 and creates many of the issues in client server architecture. I didn't want to imply that code intended to benchmark a server would be done on a remote client, and I fully agree that server-side benching should be done with BASIC on the server. What I'm suggesting is that of the many tests that would need to be run in a real world benchmark, like a query from Crystal Reports or other similar product, we should run through a common interface to get an apples/apples comparison. T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Read Codd and Date's rules. Can't remember which, but one of them says the database user is not permitted to know how the database stores the data. In other words, empirical testing is FORBIDDEN. Seeing as empirical testing is *the* sine qua non of science, relational databases are, BY DEFINITION, totally unscientific. So, if you want a benchmark, relational database theory explicitly says No way, Jose! !!! How does not being able to know how the data is stored prohibit empirical testing? As long as you can provide inputs to a system and retrieve outputs you can perform empirical tests. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
That's why I suggested a web service method - by which each db could employ whatever methodologies they have available - where the front end could run the same transaction sets thru different back end API sets. An example API might be Book Order or Ship Order for example. I would imagine a full suite of transaction tests would also include the transactions to populate a test database with objects such as Customers Items etc etc. Just a thought. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Mitchell Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:47 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance How does not being able to know how the data is stored prohibit empirical testing? As long as you can provide inputs to a system and retrieve outputs you can perform empirical tests. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. I'm starting to get that fear of being tossed to u2-community vibe when typing this... Time for some chocolate, perhaps. --dawn On 7/16/07, Marc Harbeson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why I suggested a web service method - by which each db could employ whatever methodologies they have available - where the front end could run the same transaction sets thru different back end API sets. An example API might be Book Order or Ship Order for example. I would imagine a full suite of transaction tests would also include the transactions to populate a test database with objects such as Customers Items etc etc. Just a thought. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Mitchell Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:47 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance How does not being able to know how the data is stored prohibit empirical testing? As long as you can provide inputs to a system and retrieve outputs you can perform empirical tests. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I agree with Geoffrey, Wol. It would not be pretty, but one could presumably build a Nelson-Pick datamodel on top of data stored as relational data are today (easier to put a relational model on PIck since PIck is more fully featured). There is some tight-coupling between the logical and physical data models in Pick (as there also is in RDBMS's), but I really do not think that relational theory prohibts benchmarks. Most of the zealots in the relational world would consider MV/Pick/U2 very flawed, which is why benchmarks are developed for SQL-DBMS's, ignoring all of the others. I predict (0.8) that the industry will broaden its view within the coming decade, as it has started to do so already, even if not enough. Any company that has an RDBMS tool with significant associated revenue, such as Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM, is not going to shake up this part of the industry soon, but each is making some baby steps to pull away from caring about strict relational (aka exclusively set-based) processing. Unless one of these is going to do something bold in their marketing, the impetus will need to come from outside the big 3 DB vendors. Cheers! --dawn -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today On 7/16/07, Geoffrey Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read Codd and Date's rules. Can't remember which, but one of them says the database user is not permitted to know how the database stores the data. In other words, empirical testing is FORBIDDEN. Seeing as empirical testing is *the* sine qua non of science, relational databases are, BY DEFINITION, totally unscientific. So, if you want a benchmark, relational database theory explicitly says No way, Jose! !!! How does not being able to know how the data is stored prohibit empirical testing? As long as you can provide inputs to a system and retrieve outputs you can perform empirical tests. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Dawn wrote: I'm starting to get that fear of being tossed to u2-community vibe when typing this... Time for some chocolate, perhaps. --dawn I don't think this is a u2-community discussion. I've been contacted by a few people who have found the discussions (benchmarks, web services, and relational data exchanges) very helpful. However, to avoid bothering people with a focused discussion about which they're not interested, I will offer to take these ongoing technical discussions to a forum on my website or a separate email list. I'll post a note here as soon as I have the forum setup. Regards, T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I think they should remain here to the benefit of all U2 members. Just my 2 cents worth. Tom Dodds InformCorp, LLC Information for Corporations [EMAIL PROTECTED] 708-234-9608 Office 630-235-2975 Cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 5:54 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Dawn wrote: I'm starting to get that fear of being tossed to u2-community vibe when typing this... Time for some chocolate, perhaps. --dawn I don't think this is a u2-community discussion. I've been contacted by a few people who have found the discussions (benchmarks, web services, and relational data exchanges) very helpful. However, to avoid bothering people with a focused discussion about which they're not interested, I will offer to take these ongoing technical discussions to a forum on my website or a separate email list. I'll post a note here as soon as I have the forum setup. Regards, T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Tony, Why do that? As long as the discussion is technical and relates to U2. There is plenty of stuff a lot of people on this list are probably not interested in but it still percolates on the list/forum so to speak. Personally I just filter it out. As long as the Subject is well specified you can skip what does not interest you. This stuff is very important, as U2 will NEVER survive in a U2 only world as other products are too entrenched in the wider world. U2/PICK people can beat their drums as much as they like, but they will NEVER win that war. Rather, we must work together with the outside world and show that U2 can play an important part. Remember that you should be trying to implement business solutions not technical ones, and sometimes there are other products which may be better/or at least have more support/development happening to do a job. Just my 2c worth... Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2007 11:31 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Dawn wrote: I'm starting to get that fear of being tossed to u2-community vibe when typing this... Time for some chocolate, perhaps. --dawn I don't think this is a u2-community discussion. I've been contacted by a few people who have found the discussions (benchmarks, web services, and relational data exchanges) very helpful. However, to avoid bothering people with a focused discussion about which they're not interested, I will offer to take these ongoing technical discussions to a forum on my website or a separate email list. I'll post a note here as soon as I have the forum setup. Regards, T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
And to keep the discussion thread in the same set of archives. IMO, Clif On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Tom Dodds wrote: I think they should remain here to the benefit of all U2 members. Just my 2 cents worth. Tom Dodds InformCorp, LLC Information for Corporations [EMAIL PROTECTED] 708-234-9608 Office 630-235-2975 Cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 5:54 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Dawn wrote: I'm starting to get that fear of being tossed to u2-community vibe when typing this... Time for some chocolate, perhaps. --dawn I don't think this is a u2-community discussion. I've been contacted by a few people who have found the discussions (benchmarks, web services, and relational data exchanges) very helpful. However, to avoid bothering people with a focused discussion about which they're not interested, I will offer to take these ongoing technical discussions to a forum on my website or a separate email list. I'll post a note here as soon as I have the forum setup. Regards, T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
phil walker wrote: Why do that? As long as the discussion is technical and relates to U2. Personally I agree, but there are times when some discussions fork into technical but very narrow directions. OK, proposal withdrawn, thanks. T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. I'm starting to get that fear of being tossed to u2-community vibe when typing this... Time for some chocolate, perhaps. --dawn On 7/16/07, Marc Harbeson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why I suggested a web service method - by which each db could employ whatever methodologies they have available - where the front end could run the same transaction sets thru different back end API sets. An example API might be Book Order or Ship Order for example. I would imagine a full suite of transaction tests would also include the transactions to populate a test database with objects such as Customers Items etc etc. Just a thought. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Mitchell Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:47 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance How does not being able to know how the data is stored prohibit empirical testing? As long as you can provide inputs to a system and retrieve outputs you can perform empirical tests. -- Geoffrey Mitchell Programmer/Analyst Home Decorator's Collection 314-684-1062 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I do understand the advantages to that approach, Nick. But that was also the thinking of those who prepared the current industry benchmarks by locking in on SQL. My concern was that if you specify technologies, you can make it difficult for solutions that are outside the box. --dawn On 7/16/07, Nick Cipollina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the consumer of this data is going to be external, then I would definitely use web services. Using a standard format (SOAP) will make it possible for anyone to consume the data. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Yes, agreed. I think if you start with user requirements for services, then have folks design for those requirements according to each environment, that would be a good start. I hesitate to say that it must be web services only because that might imply use of SOAP or an XML exchange that could prejudice the implementation, but otherwise defining the requirements as services makes a lot of sense. Each service implementation in different environments can then be judged and compared by a variety of measures. snip --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
IBM AS400 developed a new transaction spec that suited the strengths of their product. We should create on that suits the U2 model. Unfortunately it will not be supported by IBM when it embarrasses DB2 Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Like I said before, it really is not feasible unless you have the time, money, and the hardware you want to run this on. Apples to apples comparisons are not going to happen. If you have complex transactions, with all coding being excellent, SQL loses big time. I also believe the more records you have the better U2 will perform. Good Luck, Looks like Tony has the time do you have the $$$? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 1:04 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Dawn Wolthuis wrote: I searched for some appropriate benchmarks in 2002, but it looked like all industry standards, such as TCP benchmarks would compare apples and oranges unless comparing only SQL-based functionality and performance of SQL-based RDBMS tools. TPC-B allowed any sort of database to take part in a transaction-based benchmark. It was sometime around -C or -D that they changed the requirements and definition for the test itself conform to relational structures, thus closing the door for any non-relational database to even take part. Talk about stacking the deck... To compare apples to apples I think you need a number of simple and progressive tests which can be configured to ensure some amount of equity. Examples: 1) A single table/file has 10 fields. Record the time to add 1000 records to the file. Do that 100 times and get an average. Do the same for 10k records, 100k, 1M, and 10M records. Scale as desired to higher numbers. 2) Using that same table with 1M records, perform a non-indexed sort by field1, by field2, by field3, etc. Do the same test with indexes. 3) Using the same 1M records, time how long it takes to update each field. That is, field 1 for all million records, then field2 for all million records, etc. 4) Create another table/file and perform join/translates to do similar sorting and retrieval. Join to file3, file4, etc, where similar files are used both in the MVDBMS and the RDBMS. 5) Do similar tests using common ODBC/OLEDB tools. Use custom code, Crystal Reports, or any other tools that might be used in the field to retrieve and update data. This test factors in how long it takes to transmit data through the native interfaces, and is thus more of a real world benchmark resembling end-user transaction time. 6) Do similar tests with N users all posting similar transactions at the same time - tests must be designed to initialize all N users, then get bench numbers, then cycle down. Test user numbers 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 5000, 1, and 2. A clear bell curve should arise and it would be interesting to see where that curve peaks for each DBMS type. 7) Test processing of data using simple subroutines / stored procedures. 8) Use triggers to simulate referential integrity and note performance of varying data volumes, transaction volumes, and concurrent users. All tests must be performed some number of times on newly initialized systems to avoid the benefits of memory caching which will remove much of the burden of disk IO in tests 2-N. Tests should be performed on the same hardware with equal memory, CPU, disk IO controllers, etc. So, I think we can devise our own tests and coordinate with RDBMS DBA types to ensure they're conducted fairly. The only thing I'm concerned about is funding. There are very few organizations who want to pay for the time to do this sort of thing - outside of the DBMS vendors themselves, and I'm afraid anything they come up with won't be portable to other MV or RDBMS platforms, and they would keep the exact tests a deep dark secret. If anyone does want to pay for it, I'll be happy to make it happen. TG@ removethisNebula-RnD.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CyberDefender has scanned this email for potential threats. Version 2.0 / Build 2.12.19.03 Get free PC security at www.cyberdefender.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
On 7/15/07, Tony Gravagno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dawn Wolthuis wrote: I searched for some appropriate benchmarks in 2002, but it looked like all industry standards, such as TCP benchmarks would compare apples and oranges unless comparing only SQL-based functionality and performance of SQL-based RDBMS tools. TPC-B allowed any sort of database to take part in a transaction-based benchmark. It was sometime around -C or -D that they changed the requirements and definition for the test itself conform to relational structures, thus closing the door for any non-relational database to even take part. Talk about stacking the deck... Agreed. To compare apples to apples I think you need a number of simple and progressive tests which can be configured to ensure some amount of equity. Examples: 1) A single table/file has 10 fields. Record the time to add 1000 records to the file. Even with tests like these, there are issues comparing apples and oranges when a problem is modeled differently in different environments. A data modeler approaches a set of functional requirements differently whether modeling for SQL Server or U2, for example. Those modeling for first normal form and with tools employing three-valued logic are apt to work with the requirements and users to move them away from some nuances in the requirements, such as those that might prompt multivalues or null values, for example. So, even if you were to get a performance benchmark that compares performance of 10 single-valued columns/fields in a single table/file with 1000 inserts of rows/records, when it comes to a real application, if we were to model the same requirements to compare performance, we would might need to compare the insert of 1000 records in one file in UniData to the insertion of 1000 rows in a table plus additional rows in other tables related to the modeling of the multivalues. Do that 100 times and get an average. Do the same for 10k records, 100k, 1M, and 10M records. Scale as desired to higher numbers. 2) Using that same table with 1M records, perform a non-indexed sort by field1, by field2, by field3, etc. Do the same test with indexes. 3) Using the same 1M records, time how long it takes to update each field. That is, field 1 for all million records, then field2 for all million records, etc. 4) Create another table/file and perform join/translates to do similar sorting and retrieval. Join to file3, file4, etc, where similar files are used both in the MVDBMS and the RDBMS. I liked the facts that Stephen O'Neal posted a while back about how many users were actively using a database as well. All of this information would be helpful, but it would be more useful, I think, to implement the same requirements in multiple environments, then look at both performance and functionality (and user satisfaction) of usuable software. 5) Do similar tests using common ODBC/OLEDB tools. You will be hard-pressed to get products like OpenQM to participate in that test ;-) There can be useful information with such tests, but if the products are never or rarely used with such tools, then those products can be written out of the performance testing altogether. Oracle might do poorly with ODBC (it used to, at least), but since almost every 3rd party was building Oracle-specific drivers, how it did with ODBC was almost irrelevant. My point is that each test can favor one platform or another unless you look at actual solutions to problems built for each environment and ask the quality requirement questions about it, including performance. Use custom code, Crystal Reports, or any other tools that might be used in the field to retrieve and update data. This test factors in how long it takes to transmit data through the native interfaces, and is thus more of a real world benchmark resembling end-user transaction time. 6) Do similar tests with N users all posting similar transactions at the same time - tests must be designed to initialize all N users, then get bench numbers, then cycle down. Test user numbers 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 5000, 1, and 2. A clear bell curve should arise and it would be interesting to see where that curve peaks for each DBMS type. 7) Test processing of data using simple subroutines / stored procedures. 8) Use triggers to simulate referential integrity and note performance of varying data volumes, transaction volumes, and concurrent users. All tests must be performed some number of times on newly initialized systems to avoid the benefits of memory caching which will remove much of the burden of disk IO in tests 2-N. Tests should be performed on the same hardware with equal memory, CPU, disk IO controllers, etc. So, I think we can devise our own tests Sure we could. and coordinate with RDBMS DBA types heh heh to ensure they're conducted fairly. The only thing I'm concerned about is funding. There are very few organizations who want to pay for the time to do this sort of thing -
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Dawn Wolthuis wrote: 5) Do similar tests using common ODBC/OLEDB tools. You will be hard-pressed to get products like OpenQM to participate in that test ;-) There can be useful information with such tests, but if the products are never or rarely used with such tools, then those products can be written out of the performance testing altogether. With mv.NET we can query any MV environment from ADO.NET as though it were a relational data source, and use the same schema against all MV environments. This is one of the reasons I mention mv.NET when people ask about getting MV to/from an RDBMS. You don't need to use platform-specific pseudo-relational query interfaces like U2 BCI or the D3 OpenDB. When I wasn't selling mv.NET people called me a Microsoft biggot (even after I had gone down the Java and other paths). Now that I am selling the software some people look at this as an ad - a guy can't win. ;) With regard to benchmarks I would recommend using the native ODBC interfaces of any MV environment wherever one is available, but as a common denominator I think mv.NET can be used across the board for all MV environments to participate in some of these tests. And as a more apples to apples test it's good to compare ADO.NET access to an RDBMS with ADO.NET to an MVDBMS. I think other comments here are correct that there's no way we can get true apples/apples, but with atomic testing and more common denominators we can rule out excuses about connectivity and query languages, and with enough tests we can get a good sampling of quality even if we rule out some tests as being somewhat invalid. ... each test can favor one platform or another unless you look at actual solutions to problems built for each environment and ask the quality requirement questions about it, including performance. That's true. By doing the same tests using the best tools available on both sides we can rule out issues due to one platform being forced tools that might be better optimized for another environment. ... I became convinced we needed the bake-off approach, starting with actual requirements. We need to eat the results (the baked goods) and get a full range of comparisons of the various implementations of a solution for the same problem in order to compare them in a way that would be helpful toward making a decision. Performance statistics are just one factor in a product assessment. It's important to have those numbers, but as you imply, that shouldn't be the most important factor. A benchmark will tell you how fast transactions are processed but nothing about how long it took to define the schema or write the code/queries that do the transactions, or about the sorts of optimization decisions that were made in creating the database tables. Comparisons between MV environments and relational should involve an analysis if how long it takes to make things work and maintain it aftward, not just how long it takes for the system to work once everything is done. This is really where MV shines. If someone is going to do a benchmark, they should focus on nothing but that. But if someone is going to create a full DBMS comparison then some bake-off tests should be included as well. By the way, Tony, I did come up with a business model for doing such bake-offs that would be sustainable once off the ground, but could only come up with one that was prohibitive in the need for considerable up front dollars If I or anyone else wanted to make an investment of time we could write a ton of tests, run them against various platforms, then sell the results to people who wanted the results of the effort. Unfortunately I'm not in the build it and they will come business anymore. plus a need for the process to be fair (unbiased) and also perceived as fair. As I am sure our politicians know, I suspect it is difficult to be unbiased if dollars are coming from here and not there, and impossible for others to believe you are unbiased if you are getting dollars from here and not there. --dawn Anyone who really knows me knows my sense of ethics and can be sure it's unbiased. I don't care where money is coming from, I do the best job I can and would never skew results. In any case, a project like this can't be run in a vacuum, I think it would need to be done with oversight from a diverse committee to ensure proper conduct and effective implementation. The introduction of bias or incompetence into testing like this would be a tragedy and a big waste of time. I think most of us are interested in knowing the real capabilities of these environments so that we know where we stand, and where we have fallacies we can petition our vendors to make improvements. Regarding perceptions, any effort like this would be suspected of bias, so as I said, it needs to be done in a manner subject to peer review. Unfortunately some people believe what they want to believe anyway - that just goes with the territory. Whoever does
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Tony One thing, and I may be wrong, is that MV.Net is about accessing the database directly. This puts Multivalue in the same bucket as other RDBMS in performance. An area of efficiency and capability of U2 is in the Basic programs within U2. We need to access those from .Net as we would a stored procedure in SQL Server. If you don't use the Basic programs for the business rules in a .Net application one loses a lot of the advantages of U2 and creates many of the issues in client server architecture. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In the realworld we have complex transactions, not always the simple Dr,Cr of a general ledger. A transaction will often involve various business rules and accessing multiple files for checks and process tables. With most RDBMS as the complexity increases, the more likely they will have to resort to processing outside of the database which causes a performance hit. With U2, the processing remains inside the database where basic code resides. At which point, you hit my hobbyhorse ... In the real world ... - relational database theory has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do with the real world. It's an exercise in pure maths. Read Codd and Date's rules. Can't remember which, but one of them says the database user is not permitted to know how the database stores the data. In other words, empirical testing is FORBIDDEN. Seeing as empirical testing is *the* sine qua non of science, relational databases are, BY DEFINITION, totally unscientific. So, if you want a benchmark, relational database theory explicitly says No way, Jose! !!! Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
On 7/12/07, Robert Kubarych [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anyone aware of any performance benchmarks for UniData 7.1? How does it stack up against SQL 2005? Hi Robert -- I searched for some appropriate benchmarks in 2002, but it looked like all industry standards, such as TCP benchmarks would compare apples and oranges unless comparing only SQL-based functionality and performance of SQL-based RDBMS tools. I revisited the question briefly a couple of years ago when developing a talk for the annual Datatel User Group conference called SQL Server vs. UniData. If you are interested in my powerpoint slides (now a year an a half behind the times, but much of it is likely still relevant), feel free to catch me off-list and I'll drum them up for you. I ended up chatting with several people, only one of whom was a Datatel SQL Server customer who had experience with UniData, so some of the information was anecdotal. At this point there might be some schools that have migrated from UniData to SQL Server (there were not at that time). I would recommend starting there, recognizing that if you talk to whomever made the decision to migrate, that person might feel a need to justify their associated costs of doing so. I suspect you will find that interviews of folks in the trenches who have knowledge of both environments (combined with my overview ppt if you are interested) would be more on target than any attempt to find relevant industry benchmarks. The IBM U2 folks might have some better ideas for benchmark comparisons otherwise, and if you do happen to find anything you think is useful along those lines, I would definitely be interested. Best wishes. --dawn -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. Take and give some delight today Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Dawn Wolthuis wrote: I searched for some appropriate benchmarks in 2002, but it looked like all industry standards, such as TCP benchmarks would compare apples and oranges unless comparing only SQL-based functionality and performance of SQL-based RDBMS tools. TPC-B allowed any sort of database to take part in a transaction-based benchmark. It was sometime around -C or -D that they changed the requirements and definition for the test itself conform to relational structures, thus closing the door for any non-relational database to even take part. Talk about stacking the deck... To compare apples to apples I think you need a number of simple and progressive tests which can be configured to ensure some amount of equity. Examples: 1) A single table/file has 10 fields. Record the time to add 1000 records to the file. Do that 100 times and get an average. Do the same for 10k records, 100k, 1M, and 10M records. Scale as desired to higher numbers. 2) Using that same table with 1M records, perform a non-indexed sort by field1, by field2, by field3, etc. Do the same test with indexes. 3) Using the same 1M records, time how long it takes to update each field. That is, field 1 for all million records, then field2 for all million records, etc. 4) Create another table/file and perform join/translates to do similar sorting and retrieval. Join to file3, file4, etc, where similar files are used both in the MVDBMS and the RDBMS. 5) Do similar tests using common ODBC/OLEDB tools. Use custom code, Crystal Reports, or any other tools that might be used in the field to retrieve and update data. This test factors in how long it takes to transmit data through the native interfaces, and is thus more of a real world benchmark resembling end-user transaction time. 6) Do similar tests with N users all posting similar transactions at the same time - tests must be designed to initialize all N users, then get bench numbers, then cycle down. Test user numbers 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 5000, 1, and 2. A clear bell curve should arise and it would be interesting to see where that curve peaks for each DBMS type. 7) Test processing of data using simple subroutines / stored procedures. 8) Use triggers to simulate referential integrity and note performance of varying data volumes, transaction volumes, and concurrent users. All tests must be performed some number of times on newly initialized systems to avoid the benefits of memory caching which will remove much of the burden of disk IO in tests 2-N. Tests should be performed on the same hardware with equal memory, CPU, disk IO controllers, etc. So, I think we can devise our own tests and coordinate with RDBMS DBA types to ensure they're conducted fairly. The only thing I'm concerned about is funding. There are very few organizations who want to pay for the time to do this sort of thing - outside of the DBMS vendors themselves, and I'm afraid anything they come up with won't be portable to other MV or RDBMS platforms, and they would keep the exact tests a deep dark secret. If anyone does want to pay for it, I'll be happy to make it happen. TG@ removethisNebula-RnD.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I agree. Trying to compare a relational database (such as SQL Server) and a post-relational database (such as UniData) is like trying to compare apples and oranges. Your best bet is to analyze how you are going to use the data, and pick the database that can handle those needs. Thanks, Nick Cipollina -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:27 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Hi Robert Performance Benchmarking needs to be aligned with a business measure. Most performance benchmarks are done on the basis of Simple transactions per second. However where U2 realy bolts ahead is in complex transactions per second. In the realworld we have complex transactions, not always the simple Dr,Cr of a general ledger. A transaction will often involve various business rules and accessing multiple files for checks and process tables. With most RDBMS as the complexity increases, the more likely they will have to resort to processing outside of the database which causes a performance hit. With U2, the processing remains inside the database where basic code resides. Hence before doing performance benchmarking, make sure that the benchmarking represents the business process. It is like using a ferrari to delive furniture, it may be fast but it is the wrong vehicle for the job. Regards David Jordan Is anyone aware of any performance benchmarks for UniData 7.1? How does it stack up against SQL 2005? Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
[U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Is anyone aware of any performance benchmarks for UniData 7.1? How does it stack up against SQL 2005? Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
How would you compare the two? See what select based on size is faster? I don't think you could ever get a benchmark with the accuracy that would be useful. Now, that being said, you might be able to running Unidata on your pc and then doing it in SQL on the same pc so you could control it! Other than using the same machine for both you will be running on you won't get true results. Sorry, Theo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Kubarych Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:09 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Is anyone aware of any performance benchmarks for UniData 7.1? How does it stack up against SQL 2005? Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CyberDefender has scanned this email for potential threats. Version 2.0 / Build 2.12.19.03 Get free PC security at www.cyberdefender.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
I think the easiest would be to use a web service approach and have a test suite that hooks to the two services and runs the same transactions and time it. (Both DB's on the same hardware if not the same machine) How the back end does it - well, that does not matter. If it can be written, its fair game. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Theo Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance How would you compare the two? See what select based on size is faster? I don't think you could ever get a benchmark with the accuracy that would be useful. Now, that being said, you might be able to running Unidata on your pc and then doing it in SQL on the same pc so you could control it! Other than using the same machine for both you will be running on you won't get true results. Sorry, Theo --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
TPC-C? Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College (201) 612-5591 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Theo Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance How would you compare the two? See what select based on size is faster? I don't think you could ever get a benchmark with the accuracy that would be useful. Now, that being said, you might be able to running Unidata on your pc and then doing it in SQL on the same pc so you could control it! Other than using the same machine for both you will be running on you won't get true results. Sorry, Theo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Kubarych Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:09 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance Is anyone aware of any performance benchmarks for UniData 7.1? How does it stack up against SQL 2005? Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ CyberDefender has scanned this email for potential threats. Version 2.0 / Build 2.12.19.03 Get free PC security at www.cyberdefender.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance
Hi Robert Performance Benchmarking needs to be aligned with a business measure. Most performance benchmarks are done on the basis of Simple transactions per second. However where U2 realy bolts ahead is in complex transactions per second. In the realworld we have complex transactions, not always the simple Dr,Cr of a general ledger. A transaction will often involve various business rules and accessing multiple files for checks and process tables. With most RDBMS as the complexity increases, the more likely they will have to resort to processing outside of the database which causes a performance hit. With U2, the processing remains inside the database where basic code resides. Hence before doing performance benchmarking, make sure that the benchmarking represents the business process. It is like using a ferrari to delive furniture, it may be fast but it is the wrong vehicle for the job. Regards David Jordan Is anyone aware of any performance benchmarks for UniData 7.1? How does it stack up against SQL 2005? Robert K. Kubarych Network Services Bergen Community College --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
