AW: Creating dds source from SQL Tables

["BirgittaHauser" <Hauser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

But for DB2 UDB for iSeries / System i statistics are gathered, indexes are
out-balanced, space for the tables is reseverd and maintained, but all is
done automatically. 

BTW DB2 UDB for iSeries / System i under Release V5R4 is the only database
that covers the latest SQL-Standard SQL-2003 to 100%. Oracle for example
even with its latest version only covers around 70% and all other databases
less.
In this way other database must have a lot of non-standard features, either.

How else interested parties could be convinced to prefer this database or
any other. 

In this way why should our database not be a "standard" database? 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Birgitta Hauser

"Shoot for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." (Les
Brown)
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." (Derek Bok)
"What is worse than training your staff and losing them?  Not training them
and keeping them!"



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Michael Ryan
Gesendet: Friday, February 16, 2007 18:20
An: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Betreff: Re: Creating dds source from SQL Tables


That may make it non-standard, but it doesn't mean it's non-good. If the
standard is everyone has to work 100 hours a week, but a few people only
work 50, the people working less are non-standard. They're also happier. :)

> Unlike Oracle and SQL server, I do not need to gather statistics, 
> rebuild existing indexes, manage table spaces, or have headaches when 
> updating server hardware. Does this make DB2 on our beloved box a 
> non-standard database?