mark@DRD.Com (Mark Lawrence) (03/06/91)
In a couple of previous posts, I hinted at the evaluation process I'm
going through to select a commercial rdbms for embedding in a product
we develop and market. Specifically, I complained about the lack of
comparison matrices. I spoke too soon. DBMS magazine puts out a buyers
guide ever so often (the last one I have is labeled summer 1990, v3n6, so
some of the information contained therein might be out of date).
Briefly, my criteria are:
Performance in an application with many client processes (front-end
already developed so 4GL and Application Development Tools not so
important). The product is characterized by low frequency (one to three
records per minute) inserts with low number of users performing massive
selects (for purposes of plotting, etc.). Engineering Decision Support
kind of product.
Connectibility -- interface we code to should be easily lashed up to
other vendors engines as some of our customers insist we connect our
product to their corporate standard (whatever it is).
Availability across platforms -- engine ideally would be available on UNIX
workstation, UNIX PC, OS/2, Novell and standalone on DOS (with all the
connectivity options that implies).
Support of third party data analysis tools (spreadsheets, data
analysis packages, report writers, etc.) so that we can leverage these
tools to make our product more attractive (we can't anticipate EVERYTHING
our customers might want to do).
Of course, the normal things like price, support, reputation, robustness
are givens (as important criteria).
After immersing myself in literature, technical articles and so forth
(why do vendors expend so much money and paper on fluff and so little
on the essential technical details?), I've come up with the following pros
and cons of the top four contenders in my evaluation. I welcome comments
(by e-mail please) if you'd add or correct anything here. I'm not
interested in {Unify,Informix,Progress,etc.}, sorry. Got to bound the
domain somehow.
Sybase
======
Pro:
. High performance
. Stored Procedures, Triggers and Rules
. Multi-threaded, multiple servers
. Used for Microsoft/A-T SQL Server (same API)
. Owns SQL Solutions
Con:
. Limited Platform Availability (Microsoft vers. only runs under OS/2)
. No stand-alone DOS version
. Only clustered/unclustered B-Tree index options
. Disk pre-allocation required (?)
. No embedded SQL
. Not member of SQL Access Group vendors' forum
Oracle
======
Pro:
. Ubiquitous (market share & platforms)
. Development Tools same on all platforms
. Large contigent of third party tools
Con:
. Pricey
. Single-threaded server
. Only clustered B-tree index option
. No stored procedures
. No cost-based optimization
. No two-phase commit (guaranteeing integrity across servers)
. Customer support reputation is less than sterling (EORG2BIG)
Ingres
======
Pro:
. Multi-threaded server
. Second largest (nearly ubiquitous -- not on OS/2 but standard with ODT)
. Lots of index options (for fine-tuning storage)
. User-defined types & operations & Rules
. Flexible table/database location configuration options
. Most technically advanced 4GL product (GUI based)
. Most 'distributed' of the lot
Con:
. Owned by ASK (a Process Control systems integrator); what is direction?
. Insert performance reputed to be poor at high rates
. DEC Risc port reputed to operate poorly
Empress
=======
Pro:
. Technically advanced
+ User-defined types & functions
+ Especially good at large binary objects & text
. + Multi-threaded multiple servers with auto load balancing
. Extensive intrinisic support for Japanese & Euro lang char sets and messages
. X-Windows support engineered at the kernal level
. Simple & straightforward packaging (one price gets all).
Con:
. Low market share (calls long-term viability into question)
. Limited platform availability (only UNIX, DOS & VMS)
. Limited third party tool support
--
mark@drd.com
mark@jnoc.go.jp $B!J%^!<%/!&%i%l%s%9!K(B Nihil novum sub solemdant@microsoft.UUCP (Dan TYACK) (03/08/91)
A couple of corrections to this article: Bothe Sybase and Microsoft are members of the SQL Access group. Ingres has an OS/2 product