Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:46:13 -0500
"Robert" <no@xxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the situations I am familiar with, traditional mainframe databases blow
the doors off SQL type approaches. Whoever designed SQL must have
been entirely clueless, or indifferent, to machine efficiency.
Everyone who's run a Google search knows that to be untrue. It displays the time it spent
searching three billion Web pages. I just did it with four wildcard words -- "for * * nail
the * was lost". It found 27,000 in .08 seconds. That's fast!
Yes, and how many shared servers does it require to achieve that, eh?
My point was about hardware efficiency. If it takes 20 computers to
do what one could do using another approach, then it is less hardware
efficient.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Robert
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- References:
- COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Charles Hottel
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Robert
- COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Prev by Date: Re: How to JUDGE what is "Good COBOL"
- Next by Date: Re: SQL and Google (was: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL and Google (was: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Next by thread: Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
