Yep, work with both. From a DBA/management perspective, they are still substantially different with the z/OS version being heavily influenced by mainframe considerations, and the LUW version attempting to mimic Oracle for all the wrong reasons. From a developer perspective, things have improved greatly (though there are still differences). IBM publish a cross-platform SQL guide, the stored proc languages are converging (though still some issues), libraries for all common languages are available, etc. Generally, new features are tried out in one architecture, and then appear in the other architecture at version n+1. The exception has been the z/OS data sharing feature (think RAC), which has been on the mainframe for decades. It only just got the LUW equivalent this week - pureScale. I'd expect to see some benchmark spanking happening (think RAC with hundreds of nodes each running at 80% of full single-node power). Ciao Fuzzy :-) ------------------------------------------------ Dazed and confused about technology for 20 years http://fuzzydata.wordpress.com/ Bill Ferguson wrote:
Does anybody on here work with both Oracle and DB2? I was wondering, merely for my own information (thankfully nobody has ever suggested this), if what Tom Kyte wrote many years ago is still applicable today (http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:6495007510621886::::P11_QUESTION_ID:1886476148373)? Specifically where he says: "What DB2 do you use on all platforms? Answer -- none, they have different DB2's for different architectures. (that report often seems to confuse things in DB2/OS390 with DB2/UDB -- "features they've had for years", that OS390 -- UDB, totally different code base, totally different architecture." Has IBM improved this 'initial' flaw, or is this still an issue with DB2?