Re: [U2] [UV] Conversion code for week number
A final (?) note on year calculation shortcuts: Had Dick chosen jan 1 in a year divisible by 400 as day 1 then INT(DAY / 365.247525 ) would have worked all the time. But selecting a '400-year' starting on a sunday would result in quite long internal dates unless year 2000 started on a sunday ( it didn't). 365.25 can only work for a limited time as it doesn't observe the 100 and 400 year rules ... -- 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
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
Re: [U2] system builder question(s)
thanks! Boydell, Stuart wrote: Doug, see the IBM website. U2/SB+ trial software: http://www14.software.ibm.com/webapp/download/search.jsp?go=yrs=u2trial s Documentation including SBSolutions (Kevin King's book): http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/u2/pubs/library/ 1. are there any trial/restricted version of system builder available for linux? 2. are there any good system builder books/turtorials/web sites available ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please reply to this e-mail to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery and then delete it and your reply. It is your responsibility to check this email and any attachments for viruses and defects before opening or sending them on. Spotless collects information about you to provide and market our services. For information about use, disclosure and access, see our privacy policy at http://www.spotless.com.au Please consider our environment before printing this email. ** --- 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 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/
[U2] UV Command Stack
Someone was asking about the command stack, on Universe there is the @COMMAND.STACK variable that has a dynamic array of the last 99 commands. Jerry --- 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/ ---
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 the
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 is
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/
[U2] RE: UO.NET Connection Pooling
Bill Haskett wrote: ... 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] :-( As a starting point, mv.NET has its own pooling mechanisms and does not in any way use UO.NET connection pooling. I'm told UO.NET has some hooks in the API to define a pool, and mv.NET does not use this code at all. I claim complete ignorance regarding the pooling features in the UO.NET API, and no nothing about configuration or monitoring. Maybe this is a good opportunity for someone to post a link to info about how use it. (looking for a fishing pole, not fish) 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
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] UV Command Stack
For 99 read HISTSTK (configuration parameter) ;) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UV sentence stack
The UniVerse sentence stack isn't stored anywhere. It is kept in the user's printer shared memory segment while the user is active. The .L command and the SYSTEM() function retrieve it from there. When the user exits from UniVerse, and if the VOC item STACKWRITE is set to ON, then the command stack is saved in SAVEDLISTS as others have posted. But it does not go there until the user exits from UniVerse. The command stack can be deliberately saved to SAVEDLISTS, for example via the SAVE.STACK command, but this is not an automatic operation. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
