RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
We got a month's stay of execution! Clif is allowing U2UG to get everything ready for transition... David W. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Wurlod Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing It's already April 1st here, so I'll bid the list and its participants farewell. It's been fun and, I hope, at least a bit helpful for some. And a final big thank you to Clif. -- 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
Yep I can delete and drop too. Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 09:19PM Dude... Why don't u find somewhere to TALK Rubbish! IF you don't like the EMAILS... DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO DELETE...? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Kibbey Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:13 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Dude, your like the dog that just won't stop humping the guests leg. Get over it already. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:31 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing David, All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in some areas of technology that cannot be replaced I am very open minded to all Technologies and I think every software professional will benefit from being open to technologies. I have been unable to convince myself that an UV Brings any kind of value for the below in an OLTP Environment. 1. Advanced Level Software Development. 2. Performance 3. Scalability etc Nested tables (Big Feature for UV) is not something new, most relational databases accommodate this feature at a much higher level. IF BIG THREE Databases (DB2/ORACLE/MSSQL) was poor on ROI... Why would 75% of the worlds Corporations depend on such databases? Can you Name One BIG Fortune 100 that totally relies on UV? I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS, Never heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS. Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc) mention UV on their Web Sites Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes Nobles. Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of djordan Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:43 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Hi Joe I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database against another is meaningless. As a professional I consider all databases for any business requirement and select on their merits. To discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and negligent. There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered RDBMS in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong. If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe, Oracle will probaly run better. If you take a typical Universe Application and run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better. The style of application can impact on speed, different databases are built for different styles of applications and a number of applications built in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a sacked CEO. I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other databases and applications and have generated award winning software. The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a solution that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development which is the norm in the Universe world. All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in some areas of technology that cannot be replaced. Regards David Jordan -- 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 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
As stated earlier, kindly leave the guests alone. They are tired of your flaming. If your not interested in learning some legacy techniques then kindly just go away and code up some wonderful stuff in vb against a nice fat Oracle data store. Bye!!! Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 09:25PM What is your DEAL... Am Not Interested in Learning PICK/BASIC Or spending my valuable hours on some legacy technique. You can call it WHATEVER you want... Does it really Matter? You seem to be VERY Interested in Trivial things and stupid comments! Joe 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
Interesting... Have just come back from holiday and have not had the time to read all these messages but have been drawn to this one! We have a HP superdome, running Uv 9.6 to our 700 branches and offices from our central head office. All development is carried out in house. All of the company business systems are written in databasic and all 8000 online users seem to be getting their work done! Not sure what you mean by corporate? Keith -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 March 2004 03:30 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: 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 This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose the contents; please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the view of Travis Perkins plc or its subsidiaries (Travis Perkins). Agreements binding Travis Perkins may not be concluded by means of e-mail communication. E-mail transmissions are not secure and Travis Perkins accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst steps have been taken to ensure that this message is virus free, Travis Perkins accepts no liability for infection and recommends that you scan this e-mail and any attachments. Part of Travis Perkins plc. Registered Office: Lodge Way House, Lodge Way, Harlestone Road, Northampton, NN5 7UG. -- 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
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 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
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: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
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. Joe suggests we can't learn XML, lets see fellow pickies, XML is hierarchical what do we know that could possibly help us understand that :). George Smith -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:35:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings. However, if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths processing. Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression is numeric whereby it becomes numeric. UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a string value with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately. Trevor partly right. However the MvBASIC statement A = 1 makes the variable A into a numeric typed datum. I'm not sure you could say this is the result of an expression being mathematical, after all Store is both a string and a numeric command. The system converts the loading of a purely numeric argument into a LOADN or STOREN type command on some MV systems, which the loading of a string is a LOAD or LOADS or STORES or something similar to that. Of course the programmer just says A = 1 or A = DOG and doesn't have to worry about how the argument is typed in the run engine. Run Engine Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
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
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: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Then perhaps you should take your own advice and HIT DELETE -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [unsightly rubbish snipped] 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 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Thank you Will but I consider A = 1 to be an assignment of the number 1 being the result of expression 1 which in my books is numeric. To clarify this point for others... anything on the right hand side of an assignment symbol (in this case =) is an expression Cheers Trevor Ockenden OSP - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:35 AM Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:35:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings. However, if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths processing. Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression is numeric whereby it becomes numeric. UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a string value with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately. Trevor partly right. However the MvBASIC statement A = 1 makes the variable A into a numeric typed datum. I'm not sure you could say this is the result of an expression being mathematical, after all Store is both a string and a numeric command. The system converts the loading of a purely numeric argument into a LOADN or STOREN type command on some MV systems, which the loading of a string is a LOAD or LOADS or STORES or something similar to that. Of course the programmer just says A = 1 or A = DOG and doesn't have to worry about how the argument is typed in the run engine. Run Engine Will -- 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: 25/03/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Trevor, I *think* the issue is that the mv runtime does typecast variables on the fly, transparently. Which means that assigning a number or the result of a numeric expression (AVAR = 1 * 3) results in AVAR becoming an Integer variable. If you then say something 'string-ish' (AVAR = The answer is : AVAR) then the variable is recast on the fly into a String variable. - Charles Constant Barouch Trevor Ockenden wrote: Thank you Will but I consider A = 1 to be an assignment of the number 1 being the result of expression 1 which in my books is numeric. To clarify this point for others... anything on the right hand side of an assignment symbol (in this case =) is an expression Cheers Trevor Ockenden OSP - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:35 AM Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:35:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings. However, if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths processing. Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression is numeric whereby it becomes numeric. UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a string value with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately. Trevor partly right. However the MvBASIC statement A = 1 makes the variable A into a numeric typed datum. I'm not sure you could say this is the result of an expression being mathematical, after all Store is both a string and a numeric command. The system converts the loading of a purely numeric argument into a LOADN or STOREN type command on some MV systems, which the loading of a string is a LOAD or LOADS or STORES or something similar to that. Of course the programmer just says A = 1 or A = DOG and doesn't have to worry about how the argument is typed in the run engine. Run Engine Will -- 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: 25/03/2004 -- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
In a message dated 3/30/2004 7:34:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Trevor, I *think* the issue is that the mv runtime does typecast variables on the fly, transparently. Which means that assigning a number or the result of a numeric expression (AVAR = 1 * 3) results in AVAR becoming an Integer variable. If you then say something 'string-ish' (AVAR = The answer is : AVAR) then the variable is recast on the fly into a String variable. - Charles Constant Barouch Chuck (if that is your real name) yes you are correct. The runtime engine recasts on the fly, but it leaves the recast variable as the new type until required to change it so A = 1 ; * a is cast as numeric PRINT Hello world ; * A is still numeric A = A:stuff ; * A is now recast as a string OPEN MYFILE TO XXX ; * A is still a string A = A + 0 ; * A is now recast as a numeric again My point is that any intervening operations on other variables don't change the last casting of A, only a forced become a string! or become a numeric! will recast it. Recasting beings in ten minutes Will Johnson -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
He's doing a SCO ... when you give him any facts he just repeats his baseless assertions :-) Yes we know a screwdriver is far better and newer technology, but that still doesn't mean it beats a hammer for driving nails :-) (Well, it does if you're too dumb to learn how to use a hammer, but that's another topic ...) Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny Sent: 30 March 2004 23:37 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Then perhaps you should take your own advice and HIT DELETE -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [unsightly rubbish snipped] 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 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *** This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. *** -- 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
Joe 1) Check again... one of IBM's partners is Epicore http://www.epicor.com/www/ which is using a Unidata database and XML technology in several of their products. 3) Our company has two divisions one on Oracle and one on Unidata. The Unidata side has two programmers compared to the 8 on the Oracle side to do the same thing.and we create great stuff and THEY have to try to follow us!! Total cost of an Oracle update cost more that our whole system cost from start to finish!! Just a few comments Marlene [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/28/2004 7:24:04 PM 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 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your definition of modern? I would have thought the good old relational databases have been around since before pick anyway? 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 Jeff Ritchie Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing Thanks for the memories Cliff :) Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide, work committments etc. As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the best. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The lists are closing Dear Friends: After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime, info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have decided to shut down the list server. u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a coup or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has asked for over the years in this group. I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When? Almost ten years on my Watch. How many years before that on Mike O'Rear's Watch? In the Net World, this has been a Hell of a good run. (I just
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 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
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 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
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
I can't speak for your in house guys, but here, we do warehousing on the UniVerse machine. It does support it quite well. We Use the UniVerse machine to feed data to a couple of SQL server based solutions (they are third party vertical apps). How does the data get from UniVerse to SQL Server? By way of an xml data packet, in real time. I've found over the years that if you want/need to do it with UniVerse, it can be done. You might have to perform an upgrade to the latest version, but it's a well supported product. Read your manuals and see for yourself. Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:27AM 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
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Funny, I find the fact that I don't have to deal with how long a string is to be a feature. Same with floats, inegers etc. You really do not understand anything about Pick or UniVerse. You should put down the keyboard and read a bit. No more replies on this please. Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:33AM 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
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
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Hi, Having been part of this list for only a short period I have found the discussions very useful and the answers to questions posed have always worked, even though we use Universe as our database, most of the solutions are universal across the MV community. I for one will be sorry to see the membership closed down... Thanks to Cliff for all his hard work over the years R, Sunny Matharoo Development Team Leader Tristar Worldwide Chauffeur Services Direct Line: +44 (0) 1753 771317 Fax: +44 (0) 1753 790101 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
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 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
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage! Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: David T. Meeks To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM 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 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM To: U2 Users Discussion
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
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn - Clark Gable as Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind At 12:01 PM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote: With all due respects, Sir, you are beginning to bore the hell out of me! -- Clint Eastwood as Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Highway in Heartbreak Ridge David T. Meeks || All my life I'm taken by surprise Architect, Technology Office || I'm someone's waste of time Ascential Software || Now I walk a balanced line [EMAIL PROTECTED] || and step into tomorrow - IQ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Last I looked at Visage, it: 1) required javascript skills 2) had no published price 3) had no developer copy available 4) had not only a developers cost but a per seat cost Apart from those 4 problems, however, the movies did make it look like an impressive product. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage! Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: David T. Meeks To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM 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 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received
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
In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:07:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. That's an excellent suggestion JOE Can you please tell me how to write an interface from Apache to Universe ? Or something similiar? Because I'm too ignorant to know how to connect my Universe 9.4 to the web Thanks for your superior intellect that can solve issues like this PURELY in Universe BASIC (of course) since you're saying its Universe that is the problem here. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:27:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Joe there is a big difference between these two statements: 1) Our UV programmers DONT KNOW how to handle XML and 2) UV cant handle XML Ever think maybe your company should spend a little money getting programmers who DO know how to make UV understand XML? Your being cheap is not our failure. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[OT] Joe Eugene was Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Please Speak LOUDER!!! *throws you a raw steak* Will raw steak Johnson In a message dated 3/29/2004 12:26:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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!. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
I think Joe may realize a couple things: 1) He doesn't know enough about the system to criticize it. 2) The IT people in his UV shop didn't know much either. Many Pick guys get into Pick because they know their business market but not much about technology, and Pick makes it easy to write software without being a real programmers. Once people do get into Pick, a high level of technical proficiency can be attained quickly - not always the same technical skills as in other areas but the job gets done nonetheless. Many people do branch out to understand how mainstream technologies integrate with Pick, but not everyone. As Dave says, when people don't extend beyond the basic skills it doesn't mean the technology itself is deficient. I think this will be my last comment on the topic. Tony Since people are posting quotes, the following came to mind: Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it. -Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784), I refuse to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed. -Unknown -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Michael, Visage does not require Javascript skills, but if you have those skills Visage allows you to use them. The published price for Visage Designer is $2,495 USD and comes with 3 Run-Time versions. Additional Run-Time Visage versions are $265 each... but that amount is a one-time-only charge. If you want support for any Visage item, it is 20% of the original cost per item, per annum. We are currently running a special purchase plan wherein you can get the Visage Designer for $1,000 down payment and terms for the balance. Visage.BIT for data mining is $4,495 and requires at least one Visage Run-Time to view. In order to build your own data cubes (extractions) Visage.BIT requires the Visage Designer. However your clients may wish to retain you to do that for them. Developer versions of Visage Designer are what we sell. The Run-TIme costs are on par with the way most software is sold today. An application for an MS machine must be purchased for every PC using it within an enterprise or at least a Server copy which is more expensive. Visage Designer has many, many man years of RD invested in it and would sell for a monster price if we tried to recoupe its true value. As it is priced, everyone can enjoy the benefits according to their respective benefit which grows with the number of users. Visage is extreemly impressive and can be used right out of the box for system development and GUI conversion. And, we have people on two continents thus far, (AU and US) to assist you with your developments. I would be pleased to speak with you and have you talk with one of the people who helped design Visage. It really is a major breakthrough for the advancement of multi-value database systems, and the Visage.BIT is so impressive that you can easily gain new clients at the board room level. Please let me know if you would be interested in taking a further look at this powerful tool for building new products or enhancing older ones. Kind regards, Patrick Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: Michael Spencer To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:12 AM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Last I looked at Visage, it: 1) required javascript skills 2) had no published price 3) had no developer copy available 4) had not only a developers cost but a per seat cost Apart from those 4 problems, however, the movies did make it look like an impressive product. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage! Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: David T. Meeks To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM 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
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Hi Joe I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database against another is meaningless. As a professional I consider all databases for any business requirement and select on their merits. To discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and negligent. There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered RDBMS in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong. If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe, Oracle will probaly run better. If you take a typical Universe Application and run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better. The style of application can impact on speed, different databases are built for different styles of applications and a number of applications built in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a sacked CEO. I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other databases and applications and have generated award winning software. The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a solution that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development which is the norm in the Universe world. All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in some areas of technology that cannot be replaced. Regards David Jordan -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Michael, If you have VISAGE questions, Ross Ferris of STAMINA is a list member (we still have a few days in which we can call ourselves list members) and I'm sure he can answer your pricing and technology questions. - Charles We'll miss Clif Barouch Michael Spencer wrote: Last I looked at Visage, it: 1) required javascript skills 2) had no published price 3) had no developer copy available 4) had not only a developers cost but a per seat cost Apart from those 4 problems, however, the movies did make it look like an impressive product. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage! Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: David T. Meeks To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM 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 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments
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
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
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe, Have you checked the file sizes? Have you checked the index parameters? I'll make you a bet. You bring me in for a week (i'll probably need most of that week to prove my results, the fixes will take less than a day) and I bet you we can make a meaningful improvement in your response time. Just because UV doesn't require an Admin full time doesn't mean it won't benefit from occasional tune ups. -- Sincerely, Charles Give me a Week and I'll take down your Wait Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Eugene wrote: 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 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
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
Dude, your like the dog that just won't stop humping the guests leg. Get over it already. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:31 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing David, All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in some areas of technology that cannot be replaced I am very open minded to all Technologies and I think every software professional will benefit from being open to technologies. I have been unable to convince myself that an UV Brings any kind of value for the below in an OLTP Environment. 1. Advanced Level Software Development. 2. Performance 3. Scalability etc Nested tables (Big Feature for UV) is not something new, most relational databases accommodate this feature at a much higher level. IF BIG THREE Databases (DB2/ORACLE/MSSQL) was poor on ROI... Why would 75% of the worlds Corporations depend on such databases? Can you Name One BIG Fortune 100 that totally relies on UV? I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS, Never heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS. Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc) mention UV on their Web Sites Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes Nobles. Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of djordan Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:43 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Hi Joe I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database against another is meaningless. As a professional I consider all databases for any business requirement and select on their merits. To discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and negligent. There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered RDBMS in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong. If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe, Oracle will probaly run better. If you take a typical Universe Application and run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better. The style of application can impact on speed, different databases are built for different styles of applications and a number of applications built in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a sacked CEO. I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other databases and applications and have generated award winning software. The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a solution that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development which is the norm in the Universe world. All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in some areas of technology that cannot be replaced. Regards David Jordan -- 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
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 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
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
You are correct. It was your Trivial things and stupid comments that I was answering. Regards, T. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe Eugene wrote: I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS, Never heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS. Of the many companies who have migrated from MV to an RDBMS you always hear the fanfare of their initial decision but rarely of the years of toil as they try to get back what they originally had, let alone moving forward. Read up on Oxford Health for one of many examples. Moving to an unknown DBMS platform isn't good for stock values - sad but true fact of Wall Street. If IBM actually stood behind U2 then this attitude might change a little. It seems like many people over there support U2 but IBM as a company just doesn't want to openly embrace the technology. Also, as Chuck says, there is the big company, big money mindset - MV is just too efficient for those guys to consider because their IT staff wouldn't be commensurate with their company size. I do have an anecdote: One of my clients, an MV user, is a supplier to a fortune 500 company. That F500 company chooses to remotely connect into my client to obtain their business data - because they can't get the data they need fast enough from their big 3 systems and IT staff. Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc) mention UV on their Web Sites If you'd like to integrate SAP with U2, I told you I'd be happy to do it for you. So far no one has asked - that's why you don't see anything anywhere. I think the mindset is one or the other - it doesn't have to be that way. Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes Nobles. Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role. Ahhh, and this is the point where most Pick people will agree the market has collectively failed to perform: Marketing. The people who have acquired MV environments have done so with the idea of somehow turning over a profit through investment, but rarely do the plans truly include expanding awareness of the Pick model to bring in new developers. It's a paradox that I've been trying to understand for many years. Expansion cannot happen without education, and that means encouraging books, magazine articles, and other forms of mainstream advertising. If IBM, jBASE, and Raining Data ever do for their products what Intersystems has done for Cache', _then_ we'd have some fun! Tony (Always willing to write a book, and I occasionally do...) -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe Thanks for the direct reply. I have had some experience with 'mainstream' databases and due mainly to my lack of knowledge and experience I found them to be cumbersome, inefficient and expensive for the type of applications I was dealing with. Having said that, I have seen some fantastic applications written with them by those that knew them well. As a general rule, MV databases do some things well and others not at all well whilst 'mainstream' databases can do most things well BUT at a cost. Traditionally the MV (or Pick) users of the past were too used to getting a lot of application for much less cost which in the long run has been the MV databases biggest problem. Being so inexpensive meant the money wasn't there for marketing and to a degree the RD. Your in-house MV people either haven't given this issue enough effort or may not have the knowledge of UV to set up this machine correctly as 15-20 second search times seems excessive to me. However, it is up to you whether or not you provide the ANALYZE.FILE results or not but it may help other list members if we were to pursue it. Best of luck 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
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Hi Will, troll( P ) Pronunciation Key (trl) v. trolled, troll*ing, trolls v. tr. 1. 1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat. 2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass. 3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing Say no more 8-) Joe has a little spare time and enjoys fishing. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 2:01 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
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
[ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
teasing This is a test, right? Y'all got together off-list and cooked this up to see if I was going to follow through or just roll over and let things free-wheel for the duration. /teasing Seriously, this kind of name calling, mud slingly, and vitriol is disturbing in its lack of professionalism. Add to that the fact that this still remains a TECHNICAL discussion list. Just because the list is closing doesn't mean everyone is free to go off on an off-topic, non-technical tirade. Just because it's the last week of school doesn't mean you can start a spit-ball war. Now, please compose yourselves, and drop this thread. -- Regards, Clif [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
Re: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
*** end of thread *** Joe Eugene wrote: 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Moderator Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:09 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Importance: High teasing This is a test, right? Y'all got together off-list and cooked this up to see if I was going to follow through or just roll over and let things free-wheel for the duration. /teasing Seriously, this kind of name calling, mud slingly, and vitriol is disturbing in its lack of professionalism. Add to that the fact that this still remains a TECHNICAL discussion list. Just because the list is closing doesn't mean everyone is free to go off on an off-topic, non-technical tirade. Just because it's the last week of school doesn't mean you can start a spit-ball war. Now, please compose yourselves, and drop this thread. -- Regards, Clif [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
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe You must have more time on your hands than I but I will try to reply to you before this list terminates. This list has helped me and I'm sure many others overcome our ignorance or lack of experience etc. When genuine problems are encountered we usually go through our support channels and they get fixed (usually). In fact only the other day a small issue was confirmed (in my mind) as an introduced bug and I have since reported it to IBM with their response being acknowledged and will be in the next release etc. Now, one of my pet topics is typing! You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings. However, if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths processing. Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression is numeric whereby it becomes numeric. If it needs to be treated as string UV will automatically convert it back to string. Now this makes programming much easier and if the programmer is careful not to treat it as a string he/she can perform many mathematical operations on it without it becoming a string again. Now this brings me to the next point when referring to typing. UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a string value with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately. This technique makes selection or searches on the file much more efficient than 'mainstream' searches as they must use the numeric capabilities of the processor to carry out the necessary comparisons whereby UV simply does string comparisons. Now at this point I must draw back a little as I have too many comments to make... The procedural code you provide is crude to say the least and yes there are many tools that allow you to use more 'business rules' and so forth. Finally, in Australia where we generally are considered to be minor players there is an UV site with 2000 plus concurrent users on a wide area network that processes 3-4 million transactions per day 7x24 and has to date been first to bring new technologies to the market before any 'mainstream' products. Poof is in the eating I'm afraid. Cheers Trevor Ockenden OSP - Original Message - From: Joe Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:06 PM Subject: 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
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Well the list is certainly going to go out with a bang then :) - Original Message - From: Joe Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:24 PM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing 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 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your definition of modern? I would have thought the good old relational databases have been around since before pick anyway? 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 Jeff Ritchie Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing Thanks for the memories Cliff :) Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide, work committments etc. As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the best. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The lists are closing Dear Friends: After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime, info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have decided to shut down the list server. u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a coup or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has asked for over the years in this group. I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When? Almost ten years on my Watch. How many years before that on Mike O'Rear's Watch? In the Net World, this has been a Hell of a good run. (I just couldn't resist tripping the Net Nanny filters one last time very evil grin) I'll see all of you on the other media, ok? -- Regards, Clif ~~~ W. Clifton Oliver, CCP CLIFTON OLIVER ASSOCIATES Tel: +1 619 460 5678Web: www.oliver.com
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Does Highly Evolved mean Highly Complicated as well as Highly Priced and High Maintenance Cost? Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: Joe Eugene To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 7:24 PM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing 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 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your definition of modern? I would have thought the good old relational databases have been around since before pick anyway? 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 Jeff Ritchie Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing Thanks for the memories Cliff :) Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide, work committments etc. As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the best. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The lists are closing Dear Friends: After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime, info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have decided to shut down the list server. u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a coup or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has asked for over the years in this group. I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When? Almost ten years on my Watch. How many years before that on Mike O'Rear's Watch? In the Net World, this has been a Hell of a good run. (I
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
