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 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 R&D 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/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
