🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <589@hlwpc.UUCP> kmk@hlwpc.UUCP (Ken Keyzer) writes:
>>Let's start with something simple :-) 
>>	What is the best UNIX database management system?  Why?
>>

Best relative to what criteria?  I prefer that we start by defining a set
of criteria to evaluate dbms before we start publishing the results of our
evaluations.

Darryl Olson
... uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!olson

> Let's start with something simple :-) 
> 	What is the best UNIX database management system?  Why?
> 

So far I have seen only UNIFY and ORACLE.  I don'T count INGRES because
the University here only gets the "toy" version.  At any rate, for ease
of use and non-programmability (for non-programmers) I vote for UNIFY at
the present time.

Also, the SQL language is fairly simple.  What I liked best was being able
to substanstially change the scheme and reconfigure the database with one
command and not lose any data or have to reload the database..

	- jerry  ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jerry
	  Computing Services Division - Univ. Of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

In article <589@hlwpc.UUCP> kmk@hlwpc.UUCP (Ken Keyzer) writes:
>Let's start with something simple :-) 
>	What is the best UNIX database management system?  Why?
>
There is no one 'best'. I would choose Unify if I needed a large
(say 10-250 megabyte) database, Ingres if I wanted a dbms with
all the bells and whistles and Informix if I wanted something that
also ran on pc's.

-- 
voice= 415 823-2441
uucp={ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!jmc

In article <776@dataio.UUCP> olson@dataio.UUCP (Darryl Olson) writes:
>In article <589@hlwpc.UUCP> kmk@hlwpc.UUCP (Ken Keyzer) writes:
>>>Let's start with something simple :-) 
>>>	What is the best UNIX database management system?  Why?
>>>
>
>Best relative to what criteria?  I prefer that we start by defining a set
>of criteria to evaluate dbms before we start publishing the results of our
>evaluations.
>
>Darryl Olson
>... uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!olson
>

I expect that the criteria for the evaluation were the "Why?" part of the
question.  Thus, this survey can kill several birds with one posting
(or, as it turned out, three postings), by getting evaluations along with
evaluation strategies.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw

In article <589@hlwpc.UUCP> kmk@hlwpc.UUCP (Ken Keyzer) writes:
>Let's start with something simple :-) 
>	What is the best UNIX database management system?  Why?
>

The question of "what database software is best" is dependent upon the
intended users of the database(s), and the specifics of an application.  There
are tradeoffs of power, flexibility, and ease of use (both by the programmer
and the users).  In my situation, I develop databases for use by
non-programmers.  Many of the users of my databases not only do not know much
about computers, they are not particularly interested in learning about them.
They just want to get their work done.  This has a great influence on my
choice of "the best database software".

For my needs, I have found INFORMIX (tm of Relational Database Systems) the
best all around package.  Most database packages offer similar capabilities
for defining database structure, so I will address what I feel are the two
especially strong points of Informix: the data entry screen generator and the
report generator.

PERFORM (tm)is the data entry screen generator of Informix.  It allows the
programmer to create sophisticated data entry screens faily easily.  Naturally
the programmer has total control over the appearance of the screens.  You can
validate data by range checks, accepting only a certain format of data, and
lookups from other files.  Newly added to Perform is a feature called
instruction blocks.  These instruction blocks give the programmer the
capabilities to create truly sophistcated screens.  You can control cursor
movement depending on what type of function (add or update) is being
performed, as well as depending on what value or range of values was entered
into a specific field or fields.  You can creadte display fields that are not
part of any file, which can take on values based on calculations based on
other fields.  You can perform calculations and lookups on entered field
values and take actions based on the entered values or on the results of the
calculations.  For example, you could take the values entered into several
fields, perform a calculation using those values, use the result of the
calculation to perform a lookup from another file, enter the value returned
from the lookup into another field, and then move the cursor to any other
field based on the results of any of the previous steps.  You can also call
your own C language functions which could themselves perform extensive
manipulations of the database.

The report writer, ACE (tm) also provides extensive capabilities.  Ace is
actually a programming language, sort of a fourth generation language.  You
write a report program and compile it.  The compiled file is then used to
actually generate the final report.  The report program can be passed
paramaters, or it can prompt the operator for input.  Of course in a case
where the program prompts the operator for input, input could be redirected
from a file containing the values to be input.  I combine this capability with
other programs which update the input files to run various reports at various
times automatically in conjunction with cron.  You can define variables and
perform extensive calculations using the variables and database fields.  You
can also call C language subroutines.

As long as this posting is, I have barely scratched the surface of the
capabilities of Informix.  The query language is equal to any I have seen, but
it is similar to most.  I would be happy to answer specific questions about
Informix.  I am not an employee of, or have any connection to Relational
Database Systems.  I am just a very satisfied customer.
-- 
              +---------------------------------------------+
              |   allegra\   Randy Horton @ Fortune Systems |
              |   cbosgd  \                                 |
              |   dual     >!fortune!ranhome!randy          |
              |   ihnp4   /                                 |
              |   nsc    /   Clever disclaimer goes here    |
              +---------------------------------------------+

In article <393@uwmcsd1.UUCP> jerry@uwmcsd1.UUCP (Jerry Lieberthal) writes:
> ...  At any rate, for ease
>of use and non-programmability (for non-programmers) I vote for UNIFY at
>the present time.
>
>Also ...

    It may be good for users, but have you seen all of the low level toys ?
They include just about all of the basic hooks into the system you could
want.  That is a lot more than be said of most systems (that I have seen).
They also offer a wide variety of tools and access methods to the data. 
For a manager (of the system) there are several ways to maintain basic data
format and it's easy to reconfigure and optimise after installation.  And
the end user gets all of the generic access stuff plus whatever the
software people customise from the tools.  Even operations people make
batch updates and gobs of reports.

    The scale is of the task is of little significants as you can whip up a
flat system with input screens in a few minutes and let it grow in to a
major integrated system as time goes on.  Since it was written with the 
smaller systems in mind it fits into a lot of smaller environments. However,
that does not restrice it's upward abilities.  UNIFY is ideal (in my opinion)
for most fixed record tasks.  It's overall performance is it's strongest
point.  Of course it is a little difficult having so many ways to perform
tasks.

Any counterpoint comments or opinions, public or private, welcome.


Rick  ...!cybvax0[!dmc0]!fbp

"Long live Darwinism ...   'till something better comes along"

In article <818@ptsfa.UUCP>, jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (Jerry Carlin) writes:
> In article <589@hlwpc.UUCP> kmk@hlwpc.UUCP (Ken Keyzer) writes:
> >Let's start with something simple :-) 
> >	What is the best UNIX database management system?  Why?
> >
> There is no one 'best'. I would choose Unify if I needed a large
> (say 10-250 megabyte) database, Ingres if I wanted a dbms with
> all the bells and whistles and Informix if I wanted something that
> also ran on pc's.
Unify IS available for PC's. Contact Unisource Software
at 617-491-1264/ 71 Bent Street/Cambridge, MA 02141
-- 
					Jack Saltiel
					Cambridge Digital Systems
					{wjh12,talcott}!cdstar!saltiel

	"Nailed retreads to my feet and prayed for better weather."

In article <818@ptsfa.UUCP> jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (Jerry Carlin-4e750) writes:
>There is no one 'best'. I would choose Unify if I needed a large
>(say 10-250 megabyte) database, Ingres if I wanted a dbms with
>all the bells and whistles and Informix if I wanted something that
>also ran on pc's.

just a side note.  large IBM sites have single databases that are in the
100 to 200 Gbyte range and the very largest sites have databases of
more than 1,000 Gbytes.  do any of the unix database systems allow their
data to fill more than one filesystem?  does unix have the capability to
handle about 20 or 30 disk drives?  i know that very few people would be
tempted to place such a large system onto a VAX or any kind, but are there
limitations in the software also that will cause problems because of
database size.

Herb Chong...

I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu

> In article <393@uwmcsd1.UUCP> jerry@uwmcsd1.UUCP (Jerry Lieberthal) writes:
> > ...  At any rate, for ease
> >of use and non-programmability (for non-programmers) I vote for UNIFY at
> >the present time.
> 
>     It may be good for users, but have you seen all of the low level toys ?
> They include just about all of the basic hooks into the system you could
> want.  That is a lot more than be said of most systems (that I have seen).

That is precisely what I meant.  I am developing some applications for
production center (operations) people.  It takes very little time to develope
reasonabily sophisticated entry screens and reports.  It also has neat C
language features for those of us that need more power.  But, UNIFY does have
its limitations.  I suppose I shouldn't complain, since it cost the University
very little.

I have just started to use UNIFY, so in the next few weeks I will probably be
asking some questions of those of you who do use it (especially to its limit).
I am also interested in UNIFY users opinions as to its good and bad points..

	- jerry		University Of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
			ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jerry

> more than 1,000 Gbytes.  do any of the unix database systems allow their
> data to fill more than one filesystem?  does unix have the capability to

We use symbolic links to place database directories on any file systen 
under a given cpu, when we get NFS, probably on any file system within
our network.

seismo!tiberio

by the way we are the Center for Seismic Studies, we run RTI INGRES under
4.2BSD.

In article <1624@watdcsu.UUCP> herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong - DCS) writes:
>
>...  do any of the unix database systems allow their
>data to fill more than one filesystem?  does unix have the capability to
>handle about 20 or 30 disk drives? 
>

Unify can handle up to 8 filesystems (disk drives) 8 * 256Meg (2 Gig)
(it works on raw devices). 
-- 
voice= 415 823-2441
uucp={ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!jmc