posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:33 PM by amachanic

IBM plays catchup -- again?

Okay, this is getting sad. After I announced IBM's last ploy to catch DB2 up to what Yukon is going to offer (a very low level of hosted CLR support), this comes along... The operative "this" being a copy of DB2 Magazine, which I've strangely been subscribed to. I don't know why I'm subscribed -- I'm also suddenly subscribed to Stuff Magazine and ESPN Magazine, neither of which I signed up for.

But that's not important. What is important is this headline on page 10:

DB2 Goes Native
A small group of DB2 customers are trying out early code for a hybrid DB2 database that handles both native relational and native XML data. DB2 currently stores XML structures and data in a single column or as a collection of data in multiple columns and tables. A hybrid database would allow XML-based queries against the XML and relational data stored in DB2. The XML data is stored and managed without being forced (or shredded) into a relational format. Both SQL and XQuery will be supported to query the relational and the XML information.

A general beta test is planned for later this year.

Getting scared, IBM?

Comments

# re: IBM plays catchup -- again? @ Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:10 PM

I am not sure what you are referring to as scared - though I am biased I guess. What you are missing is the technology. Today DB2 and SQL Server have the same kind of XML support. In 2005, SQL Server will have 'native' XML -- but is it native. It's stored in proprietary BLOB file with hooks into the XML (Oracle does the same thing). So, is it different. Not really, but SQL Server 2005 will have some better usability hooks and performance stuff. Let me ask you this, if you can speak English, but you're native language is Spanish and in your head your translate to Enligh before you speaks, we'd agree you can speak it - but are your English. No.

The DB2 implementation will stored XML in and out, end to end, of the database. We're talking the page level here could be an element, or collection of them.

That is very different and in the world of performance a huge gap.

I guess I could go on about the DB2 CLR implementation and why it's been done that way. You know, DB2's supported external routines forever - but I'll agree with you - so what :).

Otey's paid comment by Microsoft are pretty weak considering...well I'll leave that for another day that a Google search returns a posting of naive bias.

BTW, Extenders, Cartridges, and Blades are not external SPs. They are changes to base data types in their products (Oracle, DB2, and Informix) that allow you to model the real world. This is another feature coming in SQL Server 2005 - though the different to me (and I don't know much) seems to be they get implemented programmatically by developers - instead of SQL by DBAs?

My comments don't mean to offend -- just sad blogs that don't know the facts. I am not saying one is better than the other -- that is no place for me - but just the facts m'am..

just the facts m'am