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 a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies > of > > stored procedures. > > > > It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational > > products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by > saying > > all > > of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them. > > Here > > at Nebula R&D we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything > you > > want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your > trading > > partners use. > > > > Tony > > > > Joe Eugene wrote: > > >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of > > >advanced level computing we have today. > > > > > >1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging > > >Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported > > >in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV > > >is Not efficient compared to highly evolved > > >databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is > > >Not Compatible with many of > > > of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. > > >5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for > > > an OLTP Environment. > > > > > >It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV > > >Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter > > >to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native > > >Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would > > >help corportations intergrate systems easily. > > > > -- > > u2-users mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > > -- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
