Yep, I've recently went on several site visits to other Law Firms running two different billing packages on SQL Server. All 6 had converted from a UniVerse system running on HP-UX. All 6 mentioned the letdown of running a large query against their spanking new "uber" machines only to find they had a significant performance lag when compared to the "ancient" HP-UX machines running a very well designed UniVerse application.
In the Oracle, SQL server, arena, performance problems are solved with the check book and more/faster hardware. On 10/7/05, Dan Fitzgerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Amen. Allow me to add that often the decision to replace an MV database with > an RDBMS hinges on, "what do you mean I need 5 times as much > hardware/horsepower to run Oracle?". > > > > "Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't > help them, could you at least not hurt them?" - H.H. the Dalai Lama > "When buying & selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be > bought & sold are the legislators" - P.J. O'Rourke > Dan Fitzgerald > > > > > > >From: Timothy Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS > >Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:21:28 -0400 > > > >"Allen E. Elwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/07/2005 12:53:47 PM: > > > > > The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems > >were > > > millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking > > > fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the > > > Iguanodon! > > > >As long as programmers think that way, their employers will continue to > >pay people like me big bucks to come in and make the code more efficient. > >;-) Sometimes more powerful systems can make bottlenecks more prominent. > >Today's systems are expected to process more data in a shorter time, and > >to provide more functionality than in days of yore, so even minor > >inefficiencies are encountered over and over again. IMHO, there will > >always be room for efficient coding techniques. Some folks claim you have > >to sacrifice maintainability and readability for the sake of efficiency - > >I've rarely found that to be true. As long as you care about and consider > >both performance and maintainability as you develop code, it all just > >falls together. > > > >Now, as to people who want to code one line instead of two (e.g.: the > >topic of this thread), I say take a touch typing course so you don't mind > >a few extra keystrokes. (I've always been amazed watching seasoned > >professionals using only one finger on each hand to write programs.) I > >would much rather inherit a program that does its own opens and reads > >instead of doing translates. Sooner or later somebody will want to get a > >second field from the record and you'll be faced with doing two translates > >or changing it to the way it should have been done in the first place. > >Plus, the OCONV with a translate isn't nearly as obvious to the casual > >observer of the code. Of course, you could put in some comments to make > >it clear, but those keystrokes could have been spent opening the file at > >the top of the program. > > > > > >Tim Snyder > >Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services > >North American Lab Services > >DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group > >717-545-6403 > >[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/
