andy@rbdc (Andy Pitts) (11/07/90)
For several years I have been consulting for a firm that uses Informix SQL. So I have gained a lot of experience with that product. Recently I have taken a job to write a database application for another client. I had planned to use Informix SQL for this application also. I called Informix to get some pricing and licensing information. I won't bother the net with the details, but I keep getting conflicting information. I have been talking with Informix for weeks and can't seem to get anywhere. So I thought I would look at Oracle. Oracle is more expensive than Informix but it seems like they have a good product (at least the person I talked with seemed to know their product). Due to the nature of this application, the design goals are not entirely clear. So I need something to make quick and easy screen forms that can be easily modified as we learn more about our needs. The screen forms will need powerful query capabilities. Perform is nice in this reguard, but is limited in many ways. I badly need to know how Oracle's formwriter and report writer compares to Informix's perform and ace. Is Oracle worth the extra price? Would some kind soul out there who has had some experience give me some idea how these products compare. Please respond by mail if possible. Many Thanks. -- Andy Pitts andy@rbdc.UUCP : "God is an overwhelming responsibility" ...!emory!kd4nc!rbdc!andy : --Jethro Tull--
randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) (11/08/90)
I wrote this article before I began working for Informix, but I suppose
it still has bias. Anyway, if you talk to people who have used both
products, you will get a lot of agreement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMIX / ORACLE COMPARISON SUMMARY
October, 1990
The following is a summary comparison of two RDBMS products, ORACLE and
INFORMIX.
DATABASE ENGINES
----------------
ORACLE's database engine works similar to INFORMIX-TURBO. (now called
INFORMIX-ONLINE) Both engines essentially function as their own operating
systems, with their own backup utilities. The engines can be tuned for optimum
performance. These engines are complex, and require a certain level of
expertise to maintain. ORACLE is especially complicated.
INFORMIX-ONLINE supports BLOBs (Binary Large Data Objects). This allows
for the storage of images, such as photographs. ORACLE does not support this.
INFORMIX also offers an engine that works within the operating system.
(UNIX or DOS) This engine is slower, but easier to maintain and operate.
The Standard Engine ("SE") is a good choice for applications that must
run with little or no maintenance.
ORACLE works with IBM, VMS, UNIX, and DOS. INFORMIX supports only UNIX
and DOS. However, ORACLE works on so many platforms that support for them
becomes very difficult, and new products are slow to be released. (One of
ORACLE's new tools, SQL*Forms Version 3.0, is two years behind schedule.)
ORACLE Version 6 does not work with the VAX cluster. This is also about
two years behind schedule.
ORACLE's claims about being a "distributed database" should be viewed
with severe reservations.
ORACLE requires much more memory and CPU. It does not run well on small
platforms. INFORMIX-SE runs quite well on small UNIX boxes like Altos.
STANDARD QUERY LANGUAGE (SQL)
------------------------------
ORACLE's version of ANSI-standard SQL is superior to that of INFORMIX. It
contains more functions and more feature extensions, such as field
concatenation and good handling of NULLs. ORACLE's SQL*Plus utility is
their best tool.
INFORMIX-SQL allows for the renaming and dropping of columns, which ORACLE
does not. This makes maintaining the database much easier.
INFORMIX-SQL allows the database administrator to look up column names,
indexes, and table permissions easily. The ORACLE administrator must
write his own SQL programs to find this information.
FORM GENERATION
---------------
ORACLE's SQL*Forms contains more features than INFORMIX' form generator,
PERFORM. SQL*Forms Version 3 has pop-up windows and a built-in programming
language. However, neither product should be used for anything but simple
applications.
ORACLE's SQL*Forms user interface is more difficult to use. Data entry
operators must be familiar with RDBMS concepts like "COMMIT" and "ROLLBACK",
and must memorize dozens of function key combinations. Bad transactions
can easily be added to the database. INFORMIX uses a very simple menu which
makes PERFORM much easier to use.
ORACLE SQL*Forms requires huge amounts of memory. INFORMIX runs well
on small platforms.
C functions can be added to either forms product with the use of Pro*C
(ORACLE) or ESQL/C. (INFORMIX)
FOURTH-GENERATION LANGUAGES
---------------------------
INFORMIX-4GL is a full-featured programming language that can be used
for data entry applications, query programs, or reports. It is so
powerful that third-generation languages like C are rarely needed. 4GL
programs can be run in compiled or interpreted mode. The interpreter
is called INFORMIX-4GL-RDS.
ORACLE does not offer a programming language, other than 3GLs such as
C or COBOL. This is the most severe weakness of their product. ORACLE
users are forced to write applications in C, at greater time and expense.
Applications written in C are often very difficult to maintain or support.
ORACLE's PL/SQL is not a full programming language and cannot be used to
build applications. (It lacks any output formatting statements.)
Almost all successful ORACLE sites have written their applications
primarily in C, or have relied very heavily on C.
INFORMIX' 4GL DEBUGGER is a very powerful tool. It is especially useful
for supporting applications written by someone else.
One of the biggest problems with maintaining a SQL*Forms application is the
lack of a good ORACLE debugger.
REPORT WRITERS
--------------
ORACLE's report writers are horrible. Their new SQL*ReportWriter lacks
some fundamental features, like a conditional (IF-THEN) statement. Oracle
Corporation doesn't even use it internally. Their ten-year-old SQL*Report
is still used, but its usage is archaic. (dot commands)
INFORMIX-4GL can be used to write any report that can be written using
a language like COBOL. INFORMIX also offers a report writer called
ACE, which requires programming, and a report writer called QUICK STEP,
which does not.
WORKING WITH THE COMPANIES
--------------------------
Both Oracle Corporation and Informix Software have been criticized for
selling things they don't have, announcing products before they are
ready, and the usual other software company gripes. In recent
periodicals, Oracle has been especially attacked for a "growth at
all costs" strategy.
Overall, recent periodical articles have been favorable to Informix
(especially the new WINGZ spreadsheet) and negative toward Oracle.
As of October 1990, Oracle is losing money, is laying off employees,
and is going through major re-structuring. Informix is still earning
a profit and has not gone through layoffs in a long time.
I have heard more complaints about dealing with Oracle as a vendor than
about any other company in any other business.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
-------------------
The ORACLE database engine works, provided that you don't want a distributed
database.
Both INFORMIX engines, ONLINE and SE, are good. SE is especially
good for sites that don't have a lot of in-house database expertise, as it
is easy to maintain.
INFORMIX' version of SQL is weak, but INFORMIX-4GL can make up for it.
ORACLE has severe difficulties with bugs in new products. It takes them
a great deal of time to roll out new products because they run on so many
platforms.
ORACLE receives a large amount of revenue from consulting. This is due in
no small part to the fact that their products are difficult to use. ORACLE
customers almost always need help.
INFORMIX' tools are far superior for building practical applications. They
are not perfect, and some useful features are missing, but you can get
the job done.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc.
Senior Programmer/Analyst, MIS uunet!pyramid!infmx!randallmef@Unify.Com (Marvin Fenner (att)) (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov8.023758.28163@informix.com> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes: >I wrote this article before I began working for Informix, but I suppose >it still has bias. Anyway, if you talk to people who have used both >products, you will get a lot of agreement. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > INFORMIX / ORACLE COMPARISON SUMMARY > October, 1990 > > >The following is a summary comparison of two RDBMS products, ORACLE and >INFORMIX. > >DATABASE ENGINES >---------------- > >ORACLE's database engine works similar to INFORMIX-TURBO. (now called >INFORMIX-ONLINE) Both engines essentially function as their own operating >systems, with their own backup utilities. The engines can be tuned for optimum >performance. These engines are complex, and require a certain level of >expertise to maintain. ORACLE is especially complicated. > >INFORMIX-ONLINE supports BLOBs (Binary Large Data Objects). This allows >for the storage of images, such as photographs. ORACLE does not support this. > >INFORMIX also offers an engine that works within the operating system. >(UNIX or DOS) This engine is slower, but easier to maintain and operate. >The Standard Engine ("SE") is a good choice for applications that must >run with little or no maintenance. > >ORACLE works with IBM, VMS, UNIX, and DOS. INFORMIX supports only UNIX >and DOS. However, ORACLE works on so many platforms that support for them >becomes very difficult, and new products are slow to be released. (One of >ORACLE's new tools, SQL*Forms Version 3.0, is two years behind schedule.) > >ORACLE Version 6 does not work with the VAX cluster. This is also about >two years behind schedule. > >ORACLE's claims about being a "distributed database" should be viewed >with severe reservations. > >ORACLE requires much more memory and CPU. It does not run well on small >platforms. INFORMIX-SE runs quite well on small UNIX boxes like Altos. > > >STANDARD QUERY LANGUAGE (SQL) >------------------------------ > >ORACLE's version of ANSI-standard SQL is superior to that of INFORMIX. It >contains more functions and more feature extensions, such as field >concatenation and good handling of NULLs. ORACLE's SQL*Plus utility is >their best tool. > >INFORMIX-SQL allows for the renaming and dropping of columns, which ORACLE >does not. This makes maintaining the database much easier. > >INFORMIX-SQL allows the database administrator to look up column names, >indexes, and table permissions easily. The ORACLE administrator must >write his own SQL programs to find this information. > > >FORM GENERATION >--------------- > >ORACLE's SQL*Forms contains more features than INFORMIX' form generator, >PERFORM. SQL*Forms Version 3 has pop-up windows and a built-in programming >language. However, neither product should be used for anything but simple >applications. > >ORACLE's SQL*Forms user interface is more difficult to use. Data entry >operators must be familiar with RDBMS concepts like "COMMIT" and "ROLLBACK", >and must memorize dozens of function key combinations. Bad transactions >can easily be added to the database. INFORMIX uses a very simple menu which >makes PERFORM much easier to use. > >ORACLE SQL*Forms requires huge amounts of memory. INFORMIX runs well >on small platforms. > >C functions can be added to either forms product with the use of Pro*C >(ORACLE) or ESQL/C. (INFORMIX) > > >FOURTH-GENERATION LANGUAGES >--------------------------- > >INFORMIX-4GL is a full-featured programming language that can be used >for data entry applications, query programs, or reports. It is so >powerful that third-generation languages like C are rarely needed. 4GL >programs can be run in compiled or interpreted mode. The interpreter >is called INFORMIX-4GL-RDS. > >ORACLE does not offer a programming language, other than 3GLs such as >C or COBOL. This is the most severe weakness of their product. ORACLE >users are forced to write applications in C, at greater time and expense. >Applications written in C are often very difficult to maintain or support. >ORACLE's PL/SQL is not a full programming language and cannot be used to >build applications. (It lacks any output formatting statements.) > >Almost all successful ORACLE sites have written their applications >primarily in C, or have relied very heavily on C. > >INFORMIX' 4GL DEBUGGER is a very powerful tool. It is especially useful >for supporting applications written by someone else. > >One of the biggest problems with maintaining a SQL*Forms application is the >lack of a good ORACLE debugger. > > >REPORT WRITERS >-------------- > >ORACLE's report writers are horrible. Their new SQL*ReportWriter lacks >some fundamental features, like a conditional (IF-THEN) statement. Oracle >Corporation doesn't even use it internally. Their ten-year-old SQL*Report >is still used, but its usage is archaic. (dot commands) > >INFORMIX-4GL can be used to write any report that can be written using >a language like COBOL. INFORMIX also offers a report writer called >ACE, which requires programming, and a report writer called QUICK STEP, >which does not. > > >WORKING WITH THE COMPANIES >-------------------------- > >Both Oracle Corporation and Informix Software have been criticized for >selling things they don't have, announcing products before they are >ready, and the usual other software company gripes. In recent >periodicals, Oracle has been especially attacked for a "growth at >all costs" strategy. > >Overall, recent periodical articles have been favorable to Informix >(especially the new WINGZ spreadsheet) and negative toward Oracle. > >As of October 1990, Oracle is losing money, is laying off employees, >and is going through major re-structuring. Informix is still earning >a profit and has not gone through layoffs in a long time. > >I have heard more complaints about dealing with Oracle as a vendor than >about any other company in any other business. > > >OVERALL CONCLUSIONS >------------------- > >The ORACLE database engine works, provided that you don't want a distributed >database. > >Both INFORMIX engines, ONLINE and SE, are good. SE is especially >good for sites that don't have a lot of in-house database expertise, as it >is easy to maintain. > >INFORMIX' version of SQL is weak, but INFORMIX-4GL can make up for it. > >ORACLE has severe difficulties with bugs in new products. It takes them >a great deal of time to roll out new products because they run on so many >platforms. > >ORACLE receives a large amount of revenue from consulting. This is due in >no small part to the fact that their products are difficult to use. ORACLE >customers almost always need help. > >INFORMIX' tools are far superior for building practical applications. They >are not perfect, and some useful features are missing, but you can get >the job done. > > >-- > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc. >Senior Programmer/Analyst, MIS uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall Gee, my research has shown that Unify's entire product line is far better than any other software in the known universe. But then, I performed my analysis while still employed by Unify ;-).
ad@cat.de (Axel Dunkel) (11/10/90)
randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes: > INFORMIX / ORACLE COMPARISON SUMMARY > October, 1990 >The following is a summary comparison of two RDBMS products, ORACLE and >INFORMIX. Does anyone have such a comparison for PROGRESS as well? Axel --- Axel Dunkel (ad@cat.de) C.A.T. Kommunikations-System, Frankfurt (BRD)
gharel@encore.com (Guy Harel) (11/11/90)
From article <1990Nov10.003057.2284@cat.de>, by ad@cat.de (Axel Dunkel): > > Does anyone have such a comparison for PROGRESS as well? What about uniVerse (PICK)? Oh yea! Sorry, uniVerse is NOT a database!
neal@mnopltd.UUCP (11/11/90)
->randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
->
->> INFORMIX / ORACLE COMPARISON SUMMARY
->> October, 1990
->
->>The following is a summary comparison of two RDBMS products, ORACLE and
->>INFORMIX.
->
->Does anyone have such a comparison for PROGRESS as well?
->
->Axel
->
->---
-> Axel Dunkel (ad@cat.de)
-> C.A.T. Kommunikations-System, Frankfurt (BRD)
Well, you can start by checking with Progress. A few years back they published
a comparison with Informix. Of course they might not be totally unbiased.
We haven't had any flame fests in this group recently, so I will observe that
many of the corporations I deal with examined both the above products before
chunking them for Progress, and are quite happy they did.
so there.... 8-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Rhodes MNOP Ltd (404)- 972-5430
President Lilburn (atlanta) GA 30247 Fax: 978-4741
emory!mnopltd!neal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------lugnut@sequent.UUCP (Don Bolton) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov7.085324.12653@rbdc> andy@rbdc (Andy Pitts) writes: >For several years I have been consulting for a firm that uses Informix >SQL. So I have gained a lot of experience with that product. Recently I >have taken a job to write a database application for another client. I >had planned to use Informix SQL for this application also. I called >Informix to get some pricing and licensing information. I won't bother >the net with the details, but I keep getting conflicting information. I >have been talking with Informix for weeks and can't seem to get >anywhere. So I thought I would look at Oracle. Oracle is more >expensive than Informix but it seems like they have a good product (at >least the person I talked with seemed to know their product). > >Due to the nature of this application, the design goals are not entirely >clear. So I need something to make quick and easy screen forms that can >be easily modified as we learn more about our needs. The screen forms >will need powerful query capabilities. Perform is nice in this reguard, >but is limited in many ways. I badly need to know how Oracle's >formwriter and report writer compares to Informix's perform and ace. Is >Oracle worth the extra price? > >Would some kind soul out there who has had some experience give me some >idea how these products compare. Please respond by mail if possible. > >Many Thanks. >-- >Andy Pitts andy@rbdc.UUCP : "God is an overwhelming responsibility" >...!emory!kd4nc!rbdc!andy : --Jethro Tull-- Well once I'm done you'll still ask the same question... BOTH Oracle and Informix have their strong points, and BOTH have their "hair pulling, bang-head-on-wall" what the **** is that for? Perform is crude, Informix 4gl is from my perspective the way to go, not only is it extremely flexable, but it allows you to utilize your data entry screens to drive your reporting, merely by outputting a cursor to your report file. (essentially ace with some 4gl differences). Oracle is easier to build a complex screen, and allows multiple pages for a single form, and allows complete freedom of table/column display thru their block concept, but reporting becomes annother matter entirely. Their old report language (rpt) is very powefull but crude, for padgination issues you'll enjoy flow-charting your programs to sort through the GOTO jungle. Their new report writer is menu driven and I don't know how much its progressed since I tried their initial release of it. I went back willingly to the GOTO jungle though. In either case, your reports cannot be driven by your data entry screens. The Oracle SQLPLUS features the ANSI std command set PLUS a *ton* of enhancements that actually can fill most of your reporting needs. The ISQL that Informix offers is somewhat crude by comparisson. Both "brands" of RDBMS require a developer to invent a lot of creative workarounds for some sometimes seemingly silly brick-walls, but BOTH brands have enough things in them to enable one to do so at least. I learned on Oracle, and was instantly hostile towards Informix when I began, but as time has progressed, I've come to prefer the flexability of its 4gl and to me, not having to build special screens to drive reporting, is a real BIG plus. thats my .02 your mileage may vary.
randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) (11/15/90)
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> INFORMIX / ORACLE COMPARISON SUMMARY >> October, 1990 >Gee, my research has shown that Unify's entire product line is far better >than any other software in the known universe. > >But then, I performed my analysis while still employed by Unify ;-). The analysis was written before I became employed with Informix. It was based on actual development experience with both products. If any of the points I made were just "sales bulls***", or were wrong, then feel free to point them out. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc. Senior Programmer/Analyst, MIS uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc. Senior Programmer/Analyst, MIS uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
kathy@cfctech.cfc.com (Kathy Nash) (11/21/90)
>>The following is a summary comparison of two RDBMS products, ORACLE and >>INFORMIX. >> >>FORM GENERATION >>--------------- >> >>ORACLE SQL*Forms requires huge amounts of memory. INFORMIX runs well >>on small platforms. >> From personal experience, it should be known that while you can set INFORMIX to run with little memory, the cost in response time must also be weighed. >> >>REPORT WRITERS >>-------------- >> >>ORACLE's report writers are horrible. Their new SQL*ReportWriter lacks >>some fundamental features, like a conditional (IF-THEN) statement. Oracle >>Corporation doesn't even use it internally. Their ten-year-old SQL*Report >>is still used, but its usage is archaic. (dot commands) >> >>INFORMIX-4GL can be used to write any report that can be written using >>a language like COBOL. INFORMIX also offers a report writer called >>ACE, which requires programming, and a report writer called QUICK STEP, >>which does not. >> Again, the ease of use can often come at the cost of response time. >> >>OVERALL CONCLUSIONS >>------------------- >> >>ORACLE has severe difficulties with bugs in new products. It takes them >>a great deal of time to roll out new products because they run on so many >>platforms. >> We receive 2.10.03, first quarter this year. By, September we were upgraded to 4.0. Since there are problems with INFORMIX 4.0 (dbload dumping core, performance, etc.), we will be upgrading to 4.1 when it is released (now a moving target release date). We have to upgrade over 130 machines with every release. Our personal experience is that joins, sums, etc. take a long time and therefore care needs to be used when designing tables. >>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Kathy Nash The opinions above are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employers.
belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) (11/23/90)
We chose Informix over Oracle about 3 years ago for various reasons, price being one :-). I have never regretted the decision! We use Informix-4GL for all our database-related applications. Our largest application is many thousands of lines of 4GL code, highly interactive, and includes dozens of fairly complex reports. The amazing thing (to me) is that we have _never_ had to resort to any 3GL code! Everything we ever wanted to do could be done within Informix 4GL! To me, that alone is worth everything-- this application was ported from an older, non-unix machine, and the sort of changes that used to require man-weeks (or even months) are now made in hours! Our time to deliver a new report has gone from about 4 weeks to 2 days! (The report write that you fererred to -- ACE -- is not nearly as powerful as the one built into Informix-4GL, by the way) DISCLAINMEERR: I have never actually written anything using ORACLE. But I have friends who consult specifically in Oracle, and they seem to always be mired in COBOL and C coding (great if you're being paid by the hour :-) So I may be biased. But I've always thought that if you've got something good, why look to change it? (PS. Not that I don't have _some_ complaints about Informix, but they seem very minor in perspective. And one of my sorest points -- their phone support -- has recently improved significantly.) +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+ | Hershel Belkin hp9000/825(HP-UX)| UUCP: teecs!belkin | | Test Equipment Engineering Computing Services |Phone: 416 249-1231 x2647| | Litton Systems Canada Limited (Toronto) | FAX: 416 246-5233 | +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+