![]() ![]() ![]() Right now it seems like SQL server is a better overall solution, but DB2 may one day take the crown. There are more, but honestly I suggest that anyone who is considering one over the other should set both up and spend some time working with both systems. It was easier to tune SQL Server queries with the SQL Server IDE.For example, SQL server lets you do page-level compression, where DB2 is limited to row-level compression. Many advanced features seem to work better in SQL server.Maybe just a personal preference but I found it much easier to code in T-SQL. For example, you don't need semi-colons everywhere. Better tools in SQL server, mainly SSIS for ETL (As opposed to the insanely priced IBM Data Stage).Setting this up in DB2 is neither straightforward nor easy. Some columns can be ANSI and others UNICODE (char and nchar, respectively). Mixed character encoding in SQL Server.Better selection data types in SQL Server, such as MONEY and SMALL MONEY.I was responsible for doing a lot of the engineering behind code conversion from one platform to another, and can't say I found anything in DB2 to be superior to SQL server, but did find many things I liked better about SQL server. We found many differences between DB2 and SQL Server, and too many to list here. HADR is also difficult and bulky, to say the least. We found that SQL server performs much better and requires less tuning than DB2, especially when tables frow larger than 1M records. I did a lot of work on the SQL server end of that. We have a number of large databases and have investigated moving to other RDBMS solutions, such as Oracle and SQL Server. I work in a very large organization that uses DB2 primarily on Linux (Red Hat).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |