RE: Oracle vs. DB2 UDB
- From: "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:37:02 -0700
I don't know anything about DB2, but you can only co-locate to satisfy one sort criteria/index. You can do this manually in Oracle by reorganizing a table and ordering it to match a given index (and thereby greatly increase the clustering factor for *that* index, but possibly blowing it for the others), or you can use Oracle's IOTs (index organized tables) if appropriate - that's what SQL server does if I understand correctly. Been a while since I worked on SQL server, but IIRC, the default for every table is for it to be index organized according to it's primary key, rather than just a heap like the default in Oracle. ________________________________ From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx We had a guy in here recently who worked extensively with both DB2 and Oracle. He insisted that the co-location features of DB2 are far better than the those in oracle(all oracle has is the clustering factor). DB2 provices features to order data on insert and its measure of co-location is supposedly far more sophisticated than Oracle's. He insisted that this gave DB2 an edge. Co-location just means ordering data to get a good clustering factor. Anyone familiar with DB2's co-location tools? Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.