RE: The future of U2
U2 TO DB2 --- Best thing to Happen. Hopefully IBM will start integrating all IBM DB's into Flagship RDBMS UDB. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Glenfield Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:21 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The future of U2 I believe the wording was DB2 and then others based on 'demand'. Roger -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:06 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The future of U2 I'd also think that rather than any database, the target would be DB2 :-) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: UniVerse and RedBack
We are running UniVerse 10.0.19. We are running RedBack ver 4.1.3. The issue seems to be related to WWSTATE getting too big and i think there WAS a bug in Redback 4.0 that is claimed to be fixed in RedBack 4.1. We use an internal WWState Purging mechanism though. Check WWState, when this happens. HTH Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Barry Rogen Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: UniVerse and RedBack I was not sure whether to make this an '[OT]', so if it is deserving of such status, forgive me. We are running UniVerse 10.0.19. We are running RedBack ver 4.1.3. We seem to be having a problem where our Responders go busy and never return to idle. Eventually all Responders go busy and our web 'goes down'. The log files show nothing that would even raise an eyebrow of uncertainty. It is as if, RedBack is running great and then it ain't. Some scenarios that might cause this would at least give us some areas to investigate for problems. Any thoughts as always are much appreciated. Thank you, Barry Rogen Senior Programmer PNY Technologies (973) 515 - 9700 ext 5327 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence regardless of their chosen field of endeavor vince lombardi _ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
You must be Missing the Thread Completely. Just like you started another One here What do you want? You Don't want me to reply to Direct Questions? You seem to have some other issues. If something is NOT right...I will come out LOUD and Say it on any Forum. I am NOT a ***Disciple*** of any Technology... What Works well is the Best Tool. Yes, i am saying UV does NOT Perform/Scale Well with LARGE Amounts of Data. If you Dont Agree, Prove it... Everybody can Talk.. Where are your Test Results? Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 7:42 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING) Hi Joe, I must admit to being completely baffled as to your point. Are you 1) Trying to prove you know something about MS SQL? 2) Trying to prove you know something about Oracle? 3) Trying to prove you know nothing about Universe? 4) Trying to prove you haven't been to any course on the presentation of test results? 5) Trying to prove you are stubborn and not willing to listen to others who may know better? 6) Trying to prove you are willing to show how you can compare apples with pears? 7) Trying to prove to others who know otherwise that UV doesn't work and not succeeding? 8) Trying to prove you can become irrational and angry when people question your work? I think you have succeeded in all of the above objectives admirably. Congratulations on a fine job 8-) Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Tuesday, 6 April 2004 8:40 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING) Will, Joe I think Zero is an exagerration. This is NOT an Exaggeration, these are TEST Results from well maintained SQL Tables. SQL: select count(*) from TableName Or select count(@IdentityField) from TableName (This is Faster than the above) The above 2 ran against MS-SQLServer instant. Here is the code, if you would like to test. declare @stime dateTime; set @stime = getDate(); select count(*) from CustomerMaster print dateDiff(ms,@stime,getDate()) Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1:16 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe (TESTING) In a message dated 4/4/2004 11:28:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The other day.. i was inspecting a UV File with a UV Developer, he ran a COUNT FILENAME on our Customer Master... (BTW Quad CPU 4GHZ)... It took 12-15 Minutes to get a result back from UV. The file only had 800,000 Records. This kind of Operation normally takes ZERO Milliseconds in any Enterprise RDBMS. I had nothing to say but LAUGH!. Joe Eugene Joe I think Zero is an exagerration. However, if this file had an INDEX on it, you could get a COUNT by merely doing a LIST-INDEX filename indexname someoptions One of the output is the number of items indexed for each index entry, the total is identical to the number of records in the file. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
haha :) Real Funny Man! When people LOSE an Argument.. They start Bitching and calling Names Just like you! You know what we call them...L***ERS! Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Scoggins Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 7:54 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING) Will, Joe I think Zero is an exagerration. This is NOT an Exaggeration, these are TEST Results from well maintained SQL Tables. So you're claiming that the query literally takes ZERO time - or in other words that MS SQL Server is INFINITELY fast in performing this particular query? In fact, I don't believe that's what you're claiming, but your hyperbole is annoying, as is your response to attempts to gently bring you back down to earth. SQL: select count(*) from TableName Or select count(@IdentityField) from TableName (This is Faster than the above) So both queries take zero time, but nevertheless one is faster than the other? Hmmm... The above 2 ran against MS-SQLServer instant. Here is the code, if you would like to test. declare @stime dateTime; set @stime = getDate(); select count(*) from CustomerMaster print dateDiff(ms,@stime,getDate()) Which proves what exactly - that MS SQL Server can fetch a value from a table header in an elapsed time that is less than the resolution of your timer? Big whoop. Joe, I have to say I feel sorry for the poor UV programmers who have to work with you. Your whole rant and negative opinion of Universe seems to have been occasioned by the UV programmers forcing you to give them a comma-delimited flat file rather than an XML file for import into UV. I suspect they were perfectly capable of dealing with any data format you were capable of providing, but made you give it to them in something that was easy for them to handle because THEY JUST PLAIN DON'T LIKE YOU! I don't even know you, the only thing I know about you is what you have revealed about yourself in your posts to this list, and you already annoy the fsck out of me! I can only imagine, and shudder in horror, at what it must be like to actually have to deal with you on a daily basis. Sigh. I given in to the temptation. Must remind myself: Please don't feed the trolls. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Personally I would be surprised if either database had a way of handling leading wildcards other than an exhaustive scan. Use Contains/English Query. See MS-SQL Server Docs. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Modern Universe (TESTING) In a message dated 4/4/2004 9:11:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One thing I think everyone's missed (deliberately or otherwise) wildcard (WHERE address LIKE '%EXPLORATION'). I brought this up a couple of times, nobody seemed to be interested to check the difference. Joe Eugene Personally I would be surprised if either database had a way of handling leading wildcards other than an exhaustive scan. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Ray, I see you are doing a few things here, am not quite sure i understand. The only way i have OUR UV Programmers using BASIC/PICK do this is like SELECT [FILENAME] WITH [FIELDNAME] LIKE 'SARA]' (NOTE **]* - Syntax might a bit OFF) Something like the above produces a CASE-INSENSITIVE Search and returns all the below Sara sarra saRraA etc. The UPCASE and LOWCASE only Returns those results right? So in your Experience, would you say SQL Interface is Faster than any other Interface within UV? Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ray Wurlod Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:57 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING) On this basis here are the RetrieVe equivalents for my earlier post. The main difference is that there's more than one verb (for different query result formats) and the selection criterion begins with the keyword WITH rather than WHERE. And the pattern matching specifiers are different (for example ... rather than % for multi-character wildcard). verb PEOPLE NAME WITH NAME CONV MCU LIKE SARA... verb PEOPLE NAME WITH EVAL UPCASE(NAME) LIKE SARA... verb PEOPLE NAME WITH EVAL OCONV(NAME) LIKE SARA... verb PEOPLE NAME WITH EVAL UPCASE(LEFT(NAME)) = SARA where verb can be any of: LIST SORTcolumnar report SELECTSSELECT Select List LIST.ITEM SORT.ITEM raw format LIST.LABELSORT.LABEL mailing labels REFORMAT SREFORMAT target is second file/table COUNT SUM not really relevant for NAME HTH - Original Message - From: Joe Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:33:20 -0500 To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING) Tim, My apologies... Yes, i know UV has a SQL Interface but i didnt think many UV Programmers used this Interface... As a matter of Fact, i like the UV SQL Interface. I have a PE Edition of UV on all my machines and i have only used the SQL Interface within UV. In our UV Shop, UV Guys are NOT supposed to use this SQL Interface as they claim its very slow than using the Native SELECT WITH . I have read the UV Manual that reflects RDBMS, this manual explains you can setup Tables Exactly like any RDBMS using Data Types (Varchar, char, Int etc) All the the testing i have done does NOT involve using the SQL Interface in UV, Our UV Shop uses FILE Types, NOT RDBMS Tables and we use PICK/BASIC/REDBACK to Interfact with these FILES. Perhaps the problem might be our UV Shop using PICK/BASIC... Maybe the SQL Interface on UV is much faster. I dont know. Thanks, Joe Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Timothy Snyder Sent: Wed 3/31/2004 3:12 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING) Joe Eugene wrote on 03/31/2004 02:59:29 PM: Please post your PICK/BASIC and SQL Query.. so we i can learn the magic you did on the PICK Side. Joe, Unless I'm missing something, Sara used the SQL statement against the UniVerse database. Perhaps you weren't aware that UniVerse supports SQL statements to query the database. I don't think she used any magic. Therefore, in her original post, she provided all the information you need to do a comparison. Also, you keep referencing PICK/BASIC. BASIC is the programming language, not the query language. There is also a native query language, but that's only one of many ways to access the database. I hope this helps to clarify your expectations. Tim Snyder IBM Data Management Solutions Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services Office (717) 545-6403 (rolls to cell phone) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Damn it... Don't you anything something better to do! Moderator Stopped this Thread! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:45 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, GET A LIFE. We're pickies, we don't need to understand XML, or whatever, so long as we can do what's required of us. Yeah, we could learn XML, if required. I guarantee I could write a proggie to do just about anything, interface with anything, natively bond with any database... With Pick-style products. Yes, Oracle can do things fast - only it takes yonks to develop, has to live within limitations, costs a bomb, requires big process power. Hell, even AS400 can do things, that's why they were built. It's just that mine can do ANY thing, no limitations, very little processing power (R83 on a single 286), costs? What costs? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: 29 March 2004 06:27 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing? Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc. e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment, SIMPLE: IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent users, etc..), the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys. For support of VLDB, highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not. Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong. They are not the panacea for every database requirement. However, for certain problems, especially those for which it was designed (embedded database for application development), it is very efficient. Dave At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2 that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB) to a completly
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Les, Nobody is perfect... My Theory is... We are all Technical Craft Men. We should all be Open Minded to Use the Best Tools to Carve our Art Well. Just because you are used to a Certain Brand of Technical Tool, you shouldn't be Too Big a Loyalist to Criticize its Problems. No More Posts from me... The above is all I have to say on this topic. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Les Hewkin Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:56 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, It must be hard for you being so good and perfect!!! The rest of us just have to muddle along in our boring old pick jobs. Oh well, time to go home and dream about all those lucky people working on big boy systems. But then again Les over paid, under worked and happy Hewkin -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 March 2004 16:34 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Damn it... Don't you anything something better to do! Moderator Stopped this Thread! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:45 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, GET A LIFE. We're pickies, we don't need to understand XML, or whatever, so long as we can do what's required of us. Yeah, we could learn XML, if required. I guarantee I could write a proggie to do just about anything, interface with anything, natively bond with any database... With Pick-style products. Yes, Oracle can do things fast - only it takes yonks to develop, has to live within limitations, costs a bomb, requires big process power. Hell, even AS400 can do things, that's why they were built. It's just that mine can do ANY thing, no limitations, very little processing power (R83 on a single 286), costs? What costs? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: 29 March 2004 06:27 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing? Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc. e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment, SIMPLE: IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those
RE: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Mr. Moderator... I started an ARGUMENT ALRIGHT... But I did NOT Make any Personal Comments To Anybody on this LIST Until some UN-PROFESSIONAL IDIOT WON'T STOP! You might want to check the emails. statements that are untrue because you are ignorant and spout off about IF you feel my comments are without SUBSTANCE... WHY NOT ARGUE BACK with some Valid Proof... Instead of start Calling People Names... like school kids! Yes, it is only Normal when People Fail or Run out of Arguments... they start making Personal Remarks... This Denotes their FAILURE! Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:32 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:22:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Clif, Sorry... I kept this discussion to the best of my Professionalism, until a few folks here Provoked with some serious name calling. Its appears bad enough... some folks here cannot discuss stuff in a constructive argument. Thanks, Joe Eugene Joe that is untrue, you started the greased ball by launching an atomic bomb without really understanding what you are talking about. As many people pointed out here, your attacks are without substance. You make statements that are untrue because you are ignorant and spout off about how horrible something is which does not even exist. When you are called on it, you change the subject. Next? Will It's not the Sun it's the Moon Johnson -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Sara, Can you please post your Query and results... Cause I am seeing the EXACT Opposite...as I posted earlier. Oracle Query is what? Select firstName from Customers where firstName like 'Sar%'; The above takes about 7-9 Times More Time to get any results on Our UV QUAD PROCESSOR MACHINE. Please post your PICK/BASIC Statement. Also you might want to dump the data in a separate table... other than something you use for other things. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sara Burns Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 4:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I am probably in the best position to compare apples with apples. I have both UniVerse and Oracle on the same IBM p660 4 processor box with 6Gb RAM. The 800,000 customers are replicated from UniVerse to Oracle, although the Oracle version is only a subset of the attributes required by a different application. Both have an index on the first line of the Postal Address. My query was to show all customers with the first line of the Postal address like %EXPLORATION Results:- UniVerse 9 seconds Oracle 25 seconds Sara Burns Sara Burns (SEB) Development Team Leader Public Trust Phone: +64 (04) 474-3841 (DDI) Mobile: 027 457 5974 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Information contained in this communication is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient the information should not be used, disclosed, copied or commercialised. The information is not necessarily the views nor the official communication of Public Trust. No guarantee or representation is made that the communication is free of errors, virus or interference. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Dave, I think the results point out the fallacy of your arguments. The results Sara posted here does NOT Prove anything, cause my results show the EXACT Opposite. So the deciding factor is to analyze what Sara wrote to come up with the results she posted Again post the code! Here is my code on MS SQL-SERVER that returns a resultset. Select firstName from Customers where firstName like 'Sar%'; RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Time: 2 Seconds What is your code on UV that returns the above results? If you can prove that UV Comes back in 5 Seconds under the above Conditions...I would be most happy to agree that UV is Competitive. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING) I think the results point out the fallacy of your arguments. It shows, pretty definitevly, that UV can and does perform as well/better as Oracle, albeit under certain circumstances (ie, I'm sure other kinds of queries could produce different results). It doesn't mean you will always get better performance, but rather, it offers competitive performance (better for some things, worse for others) However, one thing I did want to address is your QUAD processor point. You've made it a few times, and I just had to point out that it is irrelevant to the discussion. While UV will take native advantage of multi-processors in it's execution, a single query executed by a single user, especially such as that listed, will execute on a single processor, so no benefits will be seen for being on a QUAD (or a 64-way) machine. So, in reality, you are talking about the performance equivalent of operating on a single processor machine of whatever rating it has (and obviously, memory, other applications running, etc... impact that) Dave -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: 3/30/2004 6:07 PM Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING) Sara, Can you please post your Query and results... Cause I am seeing the EXACT Opposite...as I posted earlier. Oracle Query is what? Select firstName from Customers where firstName like 'Sar%'; The above takes about 7-9 Times More Time to get any results on Our UV QUAD PROCESSOR MACHINE. Please post your PICK/BASIC Statement. Also you might want to dump the data in a separate table... other than something you use for other things. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sara Burns Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 4:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I am probably in the best position to compare apples with apples. I have both UniVerse and Oracle on the same IBM p660 4 processor box with 6Gb RAM. The 800,000 customers are replicated from UniVerse to Oracle, although the Oracle version is only a subset of the attributes required by a different application. Both have an index on the first line of the Postal Address. My query was to show all customers with the first line of the Postal address like %EXPLORATION Results:- UniVerse 9 seconds Oracle 25 seconds Sara Burns Sara Burns (SEB) Development Team Leader Public Trust Phone: +64 (04) 474-3841 (DDI) Mobile: 027 457 5974 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Information contained in this communication is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient the information should not be used, disclosed, copied or commercialised. The information is not necessarily the views nor the official communication of Public Trust. No guarantee or representation is made that the communication is free of errors, virus or interference. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Comparing Oracle with UV
Trevor, I will try to do this ANALYZE.FILE STATS sometime tomorrow. Again... Nobody here has come up with any real proof of any clear testing results...other than just sending out useless random emails. I provided the exact details on my testing, can you do me a BIG Favor. Do you have any UV DataBase that Contains around 20 Million Records? Can you do a CASE IN-SENSITIVE Search against ONE Field in UV FILE/TABLE and post the real time average results? I belive the syntax UV uses for WILD CARD Search is ] I simply cannot even come with a Seconds Timing againt less than 1 Million Records in MS-SQL Server with NO Indexes, which proves very good performance. I have never seen this Kinda Good Performance in any UV Programs/Against any UV Files within UV/PICK/BASIC. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Comparing Oracle with UV Joe As this comparison is still raging why don't you do the ANALYZE.FILE STATS for us and post the results as my experience has shown that 9 times out of 10 performance is related to file sizing. A fundamental element of setting up any database. Note, we all stand to learn something here. Cheers Trevor Ockenden Open Systems Professionals M: +61 414 731 634 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 25/03/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies of stored procedures. It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by saying all of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them. Here at Nebula RD we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything you want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your trading partners use. Tony Joe Eugene wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate systems easily. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing? Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc. e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment, SIMPLE: IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent users, etc..), the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys. For support of VLDB, highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not. Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong. They are not the panacea for every database requirement. However, for certain problems, especially those for which it was designed (embedded database for application development), it is very efficient. Dave At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2 that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB) to a completly relational architecture. I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate systems easily. Joe Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing David, As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment. I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's early
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Any Software that can do a TON of Stuff is MUCH More Complex! Is SAP easy to Learn? UV/PICK doesn't even use Strong Data Typing (Integer/Float/String)... Half the complexity and Performance is Lost there... Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Donald Kibbey Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing So, what's your point? Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now). If your so dead set against UV, then switch your site to Oracle or DB2. Send us another note in 6 months and let us know what you spent on consultants and extra hardware to do this. Thanks, Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:07AM I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies of stored procedures. It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by saying all of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them. Here at Nebula RD we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything you want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your trading partners use. Tony Joe
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
This is a Constructive Argument... Don't you have an argument to prove that UV is efficient rather than getting to Personal Stuff.! I have done my homework on Stress Testing Applications... If you can prove UV is efficient... DO IT! Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:20 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing At the risk of being rude (which I don't really mind all that much). Your comments simply verify my initial suspicion that you are quite ignorant of the structure and usage of the Universe environment. Anyone who would characterize the Universe database as flat file is either A) an idiot or B) clueless. And the use PICK to read through it??? What? I also suspect that you suffer fronm a common malady: If all you know how to use is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail. Your arguments are nonsensical, your logic is missing and in general the internet has a term for those who post irritating comments about a subject on that subject's newsgroup which this list certainly resembles. We call them trolls -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:07 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Brian, Correct me if I am wrong... IBM Says UV is an Extended relational database Well Some people call it MVDBMS. I wonder how this is different from Nested Table Data Structure within any RDBMS. Can you explain? Complex processing managed locally to the database, without having to add external business rule layers. Not as a dumb machine to return or update record sets. I don't know how others are using UV... But I have only seen it being used as a DUMB FILE... with NO Rules Embedded in the DataBase. No Relational Data... and No Business Rules.. All Rules are Embedded within Programs (PICK)... So basically taking Data out of its Container to do a bunch of Business Logic. How is the above efficient? Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:53 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, I shouldn't even dignify this crap with a reply, but anyway ... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. We've written complex web applications against UniVerse with several hundred permanently active users for local government systems (not just simple e-commerce or dynamic web). And they perform excellently, thank you. UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Then you're not using it correctly are you? Which puts you in no position to comment. Don't blame the technology for your incompetence in not making the correct use of it. MVDB is designed for embedded processing. Record level writes that don't have the overhead of a SQL layer. Complex processing managed locally to the database, without having to add external business rule layers. Not as a dumb machine to return or update record sets. In other words, comparing UV and an RDBMS are comparing chalk and cheese. They do different jobs. Try to use UV in the same way as Oracle and don't be surprised if it won't perform. Try to use Oracle in the same way as UV and the same thing happens. It doesn't work. Strangely if I tried to drive a formula 1 car around here it won't perform either. It would just break under the conditions. You need a 4x4. Of course they do the same thing - both go from A to B loudly and guzzle fuel. But I know which one will get me home. Without an array of engineers to retune it every day. but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... If they are they should be shot. UV is NOT an RDBMS. It's an MVDBMS. If you can't understand that, no wonder you're floundering. A hell of a lot of local and central governments, defence forces, fortune 500 companies use UV as an MVDBMS though - as does a lot of the SMI sector, that can't afford Oracle. I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I do. That's why I've developed with Borland products for 10 years and with Microsoft products for 15 years. And MV databases for even longer. Working with primitive data stores like SQL Server and Oracle just loses my will to live. Brian This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't handle the backend? Simple Reason... Management Politics. No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB. WE AGREE 100% NOW! I was just trying to say the above. Going MainStream and staying with BIG THREE is Better for the future of the Company's Needs. BIG THREE has A LOT OF INVESTMENT in RD and they are constantly on TOP OF TECHNOLOGY!. E.G. Is ASP.NET similar to Java J2EE? YES... as a matter of fact ASP.NET Copied a lot of the CORE Techniques... but why is ASP.NET just a little more better than Java J2EE? CAUSE: MS Had more money to PUMP into RD and were able to REFINE some of the Techniques...e.g. Core improvement in RUNTIME ENVIROMENT AND COMPILATION. I know you are one of the GURU's OF UV System, it nice to hear some agreement on this argument. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:56 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing So, UV does everything on the BackEnd, but SQL Server does your data warehousing. And you question why UV can't support the DW? Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't handle the backend? No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB. It's not marketed as such. It's an extremely efficient, low-cost, high-performance, zero administration DB primarily geared at being the backend (as you have now) for application usage. It's primarily used as an embedded database shipped as part of a solution package. It is seldom sold as a stand-alone DB. Building actual applications that directly go at your Oracle/DB2's of the world is a pain in the arse. Administering said DBs is also a high-cost, complex, cumbersome task as well. Highlighting that the couple of UV people on your staff not knowing XML is somehow a weakness in the product is ludicrous. My wife is an Oracle expert/DBA/etc... she can barely spell XML. Does this imply Oracle's XML support sucks? Of course not. Again, you pick on UV, claiming you have to use DataStage to pull data out of UV into SQL Server. Why then: a) Doesn't SQL Server sufficiently handle your back-end? b) Can't SQL Server directly access the data? c) Is DataStage, the tool being used to do this (and handles Web Services, XML, XPath, XSLT, etc...), built on top of UniVerse? Finally, don't fall into the mistake that performing well would mean you would be in the top 3. Why? Simple... marketing wins over technology almost all the time. Informix was a great example. They had a wonderfully performant VLDB technology. They did very well in OLTP benchmarks. Yet, they weren't a top 3 DB (being #4/#5, depending on the timeframe). The U2 products are great products. They are not 'cutting edge', but they are not way behind either. Their target market is very different from the BigThree, and many would argue they are much better at the job they are intended for than the Big Three. They are NOT better at all things. But, for low-cost, low-maintenance embedded data base support with high-performance, high-user concurrency support, it's hard to beat it. Dave At 11:27 AM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote: We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing? Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc. e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment, SIMPLE: IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
This is what I meant ... TYPO RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Column: First Name Search Type: Wild Card (*) Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: UV Version 10.1 Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Column: First Name Search Type: Wild Card Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC. Call it whatever you want. JOE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Hi Joe, Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column table? Multiple fields (or columns if you insist) in the Universe database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is your choice to use it, you are not compelled to. How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your indexes structured? I haven't seen Universe Standards for indexing. Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area. Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument? I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it must be as it was the fast one 8-) Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Charles, Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it. Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards. Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test. RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW UV! How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Results Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always a premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV environment is triple the speed of a Big Three database even when you ignore search speed. Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems in the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology just to get Datastage. -- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Our UV Developers here have over 25 years of Experience doing the stuff the do... I personally am not interested in learning the details of UV since nobody really uses this kinda stuff at Corporate Level. I am simply surprised why UV is still used by a few Loyal Folk... when people with 25 years of experience simply cannot make it perform well. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:17 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe Have you sized your UV file correctly? The 15-20 seconds suggests many things are not as they should be. Can you do an ANALYZE.FILE on this file and post the details. If it is a dynamic hashed file include the option STATS please. We may be able to help you after all. Cheers Trevor Ockenden OSP - Original Message - From: Joe Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:06 PM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing This is what I meant ... TYPO RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Column: First Name Search Type: Wild Card (*) Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: UV Version 10.1 Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Column: First Name Search Type: Wild Card Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC. Call it whatever you want. JOE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Hi Joe, Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column table? Multiple fields (or columns if you insist) in the Universe database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is your choice to use it, you are not compelled to. How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your indexes structured? I haven't seen Universe Standards for indexing. Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area. Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument? I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it must be as it was the fast one 8-) Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Charles, Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it. Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards. Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test. RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW UV! How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Results Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always a premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV environment is triple the speed of a Big Three database even when you
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Trevor, Sorry.. that was a TYPO.. I Re-Posted the Performance Results. Everybody here thinks I am just bringing up things for FUN!. These are Real world, Real Time applications. I have never worked With any database where I had to Increase the Application Server Timeout Cause Users were getting Request Time out Errors from the DB. I can post JRUN LOG Files here where UV took more than 3 Minutes to Process Requests. I can't believe people on this LIST get so Defensive. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:10 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe Have I missed something here. You refer to the QUAD as having MSSQL SERVER 2K as the database so where does the UV (or PICK) files fit into this equation? Also, when carrying out this performance test did you take into account as to whether or not the file was in memory or not. The Athlon may have had most of the table concerned in memory whilst the Quad may have had to load the whole (Pick) file into memory. Let's be fair here. If you want to do a fair comparison I suspect you will need to go to a little more trouble. I have run a similar test on my Pentium 2 366 laptop running UV and a 500,000 record file can be searched (wild card - ie no index used) in much less than 15 seconds. Have another try! Cheers Trevor Ockenden OSP - Original Message - From: Joe Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:47 AM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Charles, Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it. Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards. Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test. RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW UV! How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Results Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always a premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV environment is triple the speed of a Big Three database even when you ignore search speed. Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems in the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology just to get Datastage. -- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Trevor, I am a member of serveral other Technical Forms. When i have found problems with any software, have brought it up on several occasions. A few of these issues were acknowledged by the Software Vendor and later architectural changes were made to rectify the issue. On this Forum, i have rarely heard anybody talk about Problems OF UV... Why? Perhaps they are too big Loyalists of UV to approve of the Problem Do you know what this leads to...the Vendor is never going to improve the software, unless the Clients asks for more.. Do you think VB.NET will Perform better than C#.NET? C# is a strongly typed language, just like java...this helps it Peform and scale better. Our UV Developers tell me, everything in UV is treated as Strings.. Do you think MATH Functions will Perform better in UV than a DataBase that supports DataTypes? A String can be any Possible Combinations, so the the underlying Language/Compiler takes more time to achive the same results. Leave alone MATH... Try some BIG Loops. Another Big Problem..Unicode on any MainStream Database is a very easy thing to do.. No effort required. We were trying to get Unicode into UV For about 4 Months. We failed and finally had IBM Consultants come in to help.. Even they couldnt get it done. Finally, we decided to store all Unicode in MS-SQL Server until IBM gets things resolved. Do you think this is a good situation? Yes, MainStream DataBases are Complex because they do ALOT of STUFF. I have written applications that were entirely Data Logic Driven(Business Logic, Rules Logic, Data Intergrity Logic etc). There applications were highly scalable and responded in LESS 300 MILLISECONDS PER REQUEST. On the contrary... The UV Programs i have come across treat UV as a Flat File, Data Dump Mechanism. Then the UV Developer uses PICK/BASIC to Read the Data and ALL the Logic is Embeded within these PICK/BASIC Programs. So you are taking the Data out of its Container and doing a TON of Data Interpreting... WHERE ALOT OF these can be BASED on RELATIONAL DATA. E.G. Lets say you have to Process Order Taxes Based on Country Code and State Code. Our UV Developers write a PICK/BASIC Program like if(countryCode == 'USA' stateCode == 'NY') read some file with data... else if (countryCode == 'USA stateCode=='SC') read some file and do this... So for every Country and State you are goona do the above.. Why NOT just relate the data between the combinations within the DB with Data Relations...and just leave the data where it belongs... Hell alot of LESS Code.. right? You can clearly see where Procedural Technique is Highly In-Efficient. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:55 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe One final point. You find it hard to believe people on this LIST get so defensive. May I suggest that if we were to dive into a DB2 or SQLServer LIST (if they exist) and put them down I dare say we would get some pretty abusive remarks thrown at us too. Only to be expected Trevor Ockenden OSP --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Dont you still get it...? Think a little bit HARDER!... Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:31 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe why are you on this list? What is the point of hanging around haranging (sp?) us if you are not interested in learning anything as you put it? Why not just leave. Will In a message dated 3/29/2004 9:30:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Our UV Developers here have over 25 years of Experience doing the stuff the do... I personally am not interested in learning the details of UV since nobody really uses this kinda stuff at Corporate Level. I am simply surprised why UV is still used by a few Loyal Folk... when people with 25 years of experience simply cannot make it perform well. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
