Advantage DB2 has over MS SQL Server?

[sobeit]

Thanks for taking the time to read this by the way.

We're a small company (less than 220 employees), and we are currently using SQL Server 6.5 - 2000 in our databases. The biggest database has a just over 5 GIGS of data, but it's growing. We are an NT shop, and main systems are written in VB and ASP. We have both client server applications and web browsing systems.

We maybe jumping to Java soon, since we maybe purchasing an application that is written in Java and its back-end is DB2.

The boss wants to know if weather we should go head and convert all of our databases to DB2. I have no work experience with DB2, and all I heard is that it's not as cheap as SQL Server and it takes more times from DBA in setting up and maintaining it.

Any information regarding the pros and cons of this two relational database management system software is appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[MarcLodge]

Sobeit,
I've been a db2 man for many years, and have yet to use SQL server, but I've worked alongside many people that have used both. The word on the street is that SQL server is easier to set up, more flexible, and the language is more powerful. As I've said, this is not from personal experience but just what people have said, so take that as you will.
Marc

 

[sobeit]

Marc,

I have worked with SQL Server for the past 28 months, both as a developer and as a DBA. Since the release of the 7.0 version, life has been much easier as a DBA. The 7.0 and the 2000 versions have some type of self-configuration features, which has given me more time to focus on other activities (i.e., participate in system analysis process, DB software researches, performance tunning, and other in-house projects).

I have no experience with DB2. What can I expect as a DBA in a DB2 environment?

Thanks again for sharing your experiences.

 

[legacy370]

We have a couple of web applications, written in VB and asp, that use both SQL Server and DB2. From an application developer's perspective, I'd say that SQL server is more flexible, and generally friendlier to use. However, nothing beats the performance of DB2. We have some queries that access a DB2 table of 500 million rows (that's right, half a billion), that run in seconds.

 

[sobeit]

I agree that SQL Server is easy to use both for developers and DBAs. If there's a much better performance in DB2, then it may be worth switching. I am sure that DB2 will come up with a more friendlier user-interfaces and features for all users in future releases.

Can I ask what version of DB2 you are using? Workgroup or
Enterprise? Windows, Unix, or AS400?

Thanks.

 

[legacy370]

We're using DB2 UDB for OS/390 V7 Licensed Bookshelf. An IBM mainframe, in other words. We reach DB2 from our Microsoft NT Server by using a product from IBM called DB2 Connect.

 

[legacy370]

We're using DB2 UDB for OS/390 V7 . An IBM mainframe, in other words. We reach DB2 from our Microsoft NT Server by using a product from IBM called DB2 Connect.

 

[blom0344]

Hello Sobeit,

As a parttime DBA I work both with DB2 and ORACLE. I have absolutely no problem with performance of DB2, it's stability is excellent, but you have to acquire a certain shade of blue (IBM blue that is). The boys (can't be girls in this case) who dreamed this up never gave much thought about us, simple mortals. I have 2 thick DBA manuals and each time I try to look something up , I start wondering which sadistic soul managed to create such incomprehensible stuff. It deserves a razzie award for most inaccesible it-manual (other stuff from IBM is slightly better, but deserves no praise)
Suggested reading:

DB2 UDB V7.2 SQL Cookbook by Graeme Birchall

T. Blom
Information analist
Shimano Europe
tbl@shimano-eu.com