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

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.

Other related posts: