Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Robert <no@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:17:01 -0500
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:46:13 -0500, "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"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.
A server with 20 CPUs costs about $40K. How much does a mainframe cost?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Judson McClendon
- 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
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Judson McClendon
- COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Prev by Date: Looking for high rated photos
- Next by Date: Re: How to JUDGE what is "Good COBOL"
- Previous by thread: Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Next by thread: Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
