[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Richard Gambrell writes all the right stuff when he writes his thoughts about
> Oracle vs. IMAGE. The only thing that I would take exception to is this:
>
> > While Oracle offers a few features that Image doesn't (like the ability to
> >  add a column to a table dynamically), the feature additions to Image/sql in
> >  recent years have brought to it nearly anything you'd reasonably need,
> while
> >  maintaining the same high standards of performance and reliability.
>
> If it should ever be proposed that IMAGE have the capacity to add a column to
> a table dynamically (a dataitem at the end of a dataset, in IMAGE-speak), I
> would vigorously oppose the idea. This is one of the things that works to
> simply kill performance.

Let me add my $.005 clarification.  In no way did I intend to suggest that it
would be a worthwhile addition to Image.  In fact, with b-trees and dynamic
expansion, Image/sql competes very, very well in features that are actually
"business useful" with Oracle.  That was the point of my remarks.  The only
things I really like in Oracle that is not in "base" Image is having keys
that span multiple columns, but if need this you can do this, too, in Image
with 3rd party add-ons.

> Wirt Atmar

--
Richard Gambrell
Database Administrator and Consultant to Computing Services
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Dept. 4454
113 Hunter Hall, 615 McCallie Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
UTC e-mail: [log in to unmask]   phone: 423-755-4551
Home e-mail: [log in to unmask]