|IBM PureQuery was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 June 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into IBM Db2. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Databases / Computer science||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|The content of IBM DB2 Express-C was merged into IBM Db2. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2017-07-24)|
- 1 Structural and maintenance issues
- 2 Verbless sentence
- 3 POV
- 4 Whoa
- 5 POV Issues
- 6 Nomenclature Issues
- 7 Ad language?
- 8 SQL
- 9 Template for organizing IBM DB2 articles
- 10 Heritage of DB2 for LUW
- 11 IDC report on market share
- 12 Reads like a marketing brochure.
- 13 System Query Language?
- 14 DB2 vs. DB/2
- 15 Not actually first.
- 16 Cleanup of Page to remove marketing
- 17 Merge from IBM DB2 Express-C
- 18 "common server" product
Structural and maintenance issues
Just one opinion obviously, but I feel that this article should be changed to a high level summary, with links to separate articles to individual DB2 products if required.
My argument for this position is that to this day, DB2 is still not a single product but a family of products. Historically there were many members of this family, but as the article points out there are now just 3 main products: DB2 for z-Series, DB2 for Linux, UNIX and Windows, and DB2 for i-Series. DB2 for Linux, UNIX and Windows is the "common server" version of DB2, supporting mainstream server architectures from a common code base, while the other two products use separate code bases architected at single platforms.
Although IBM has tried to ensure a large degree of compatibility between SQL support between the first two of these products in particular, each of the 3 products in fact has a very different architecture, different features and different strengths and weaknesses.
Note also that a fourth product, DB2 for VM / VSE is still available (but obscure).
So getting to my main point, trying to include a lot of detail in a single article is just going to guarantee a mess, as many qualifications will be needed to draw distinctions between the capabilities and attributes of one product versus another. That's assuming the writer even knows about the differences, since detailed knowledge of one product generally won't mean detailed knowledge of another.
If the aim of this article is to be high-level, I find the section on error codes somewhat incongruous.
Also, DB2 Everyplace is discontinued.
- According to Michael Stonebraker, when IBM chose to make SQL the standard for database query languages by announcing its inclusion into DB2.
- If there's a verb in this sentence, I can't find it :-)
- --Anonymous Coward
- I have the removed the verbless sentence. A better solution would have been to try to track changes the the sentence to try to find out what it should have said; but I didn't have time for that. TroelsArvin 13:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
DB2 is available in several "editions," i.e. licensing arrangements. By opting for a reduced-feature "edition," IBM allows customers to avoid paying for database features which they do not need.
This smacks of POV to me, specifically, marketing POV. Isn't it equally valid (and equally POV-ish) to say something like, "DB2 is available in several "editions". By offering reduced-feature editions at lower prices, a practice known in the industry as tiering, IBM is able to extract the maximum consumer surplus from its customer base. Economists refer to this as price discrimination." --AnonymousBlowhard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2006
This page seems to need a lot of work. I cleaned up some stuff in the introduction. Even this talk page is not structured in the standard Wikipedia format (use the + tab to add a new section in this talk page, please).
One thing that I have a question over is whether titles of specific IBM products ought to be linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article/section.
--Whiteknox 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a slight preference to leave the links to IBM products in the article, provided that links are not repeated many times. To begin with, I have removed the repetitive linkage so that the unique links can be found more easily. Definately more maintenance required. John Vandenberg 05:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The article seems something like an advertisement with the language toned down a little bit. Although readers of the article may want to know details such as the pricing of various systems, it should still exhibit a fairly normal encyclopedia style. I don't think there should be external links to products in the body of the article, such as DB2 9 Express-C and SUPRA SQL (under []; external links should go at the end. Someone more familiar with Wikipedia styling correct me if I'm wrong. I worked on some of the problems (maybe I'll get back to it later). --Whiteknox 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It turns out that DB2 on z/OS got dubbed "DB2 9" not "DB2 Version 9" so I tightened that up. Martin Packer 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"IBM Information Management Training and Certification accelerates DB2 learning with IBM product experts. Take advantage of Instructor Led Online (ILO) — an innovative new training option that combines the benefits of classroom training with the cost savings of an online course."
- Seems to be more like an ad to me, should be rewritten. Ulflarsen (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The article says that "contrary to popular belief, does not stand for Structured Query Language" I have never seen any other source to say that SQL does NOT stand for that, in fact, everything I've ever seen says it stands for that. So I do think that it stands for that, even though it may not exactly be the correct definition. Look at the Wikipedia article about SQL: At the very beginning it says that SQL stands for Structured Query Language. Thus this statement in this article compromise the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertvanbiljon (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Add a time element: Perhaps it ORIGINALLY didn't stand for "Structured Query Language" - perhaps in the System R prototype. But since Version 1 it certainly has. Martin Packer (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Allen G. Taylor itself writes SQL as 'Structured Query Language' on page 7 of his book 'SQL for Dummies'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- At a System R reunion in 1995, Don Chamberlin claimed that as a result of a trademark dispute " ... I think I was the one who condensed all the vowels out of SEQUEL to turn it into SQL, .... " - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Template for organizing IBM DB2 articles
I've created Template:IBM_DB2_product_family to help organize articles related to IBM DB2. If you split the main article, please incorporate the split-off pages into the template.
It looks like User:Chafas is working on Data Studio articles:
Heritage of DB2 for LUW
I am a DB2 for LUW consultant with about 10 years' experience. I also bought a copy of DB2 Common Server v2 many years ago. My understanding (from Don Chamberlin's book "A Guide to DB2 Common Server: using the new DB2") is that DB2 Parallel Edition (the shared nothing partitioned database available on UNIX only) was merged with DB2 Common Server v2 (the first edition to use Starburst technologies, and the first to have a common code base across different platforms - UNIX, Windows and OS/2). The merged product was branded DB2 Universal Database v5 (skipping several version numbers). Later on, OS/2 support was dropped and Linux support added, and the product eventually rebranded DB2 for LUW. Note also at some point a few years ago IBM marketeers in their wisdom rebranded most of the other flavours of DB2 (e.g. z-Series, i-Series) as DB2 Universal Database, even though the code bases remained very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've put a "dead link" template on it, but as whoever added it didn't tell us the title (just giving a bare URL) it's difficult to find where that document has been moved to. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Reads like a marketing brochure.
"Selected features that deliver these valuable benefits to any business include" "Unsurpassed resiliency for business-critical information" --Sivar 20:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think the language you're talking about was all added in this edit by - this was Ravikkumaar's only edit. It does indeed sound like pure marketing copy - it's not written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and it's entirely unsourced. I've removed it, and I think with that the gone rest of that section doesn't seem like advertising. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
System Query Language?
The article under history says: "When IBM released its first relational database product, they wanted to have a commercial-quality sublanguage as well, so it overhauled SEQUEL and renamed the basically new language (System Query Language) SQL to differentiate it from SEQUEL."
Really? I think we need a reference for "System Query Language" Additionally, the SQL page says that the name was changed due to a trademark and it's cited; so I replicated a sentence and citation from that page here. If we can't come up with a reference for System Query Language, I think we should remove it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- At a System R reunion in 1995, Don Chamberlin claimed that as a result of a trademark dispute " ... I think I was the one who condensed all the vowels out of SEQUEL to turn it into SQL, .... " Since Don Chamberlin is one of the authors of the paper describing SEQUEL originally, one can conclude that SQL is an acronym for SEQUEL, which could not be used as a brand name because lawyers claimed that SEQUEL was already trademarked to the Hawker Siddeley Aircraft Company in Great Britain. This implies that SQL is effectively still an abbreviation of the phrase Structured English Query Language and the reason it needed to be differentiated from SEQUEL was to avoid a trademark dispute and had nothing to do with an overhaul of SEQUEL. The suggestion that SQL is short for System Query Language or even Structured Query Language is perhaps reverse engineering the meaning of SQL at a later date without reference to the recollections of people who came up with the name originally. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
DB2 vs. DB/2
Wasn't the name originally "DB/2"? If so when was the name changed? The article should probably say something. "IBM, OS/2, DB/2, and AS/400 are registered trademarks..." http://books.google.com/books?id=nTsEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA57&dq=%22DB%2F2%22%20IBM&pg=PA57#v=onepage&q=%22DB/2%22%20IBM&f=false Peter Flass (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that DB/2 was used to mean DB2 for OS/2 in particular, although in practice the two variants were used interchangeably by many people. I have no source for this, just experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpjr27 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Not actually first.
I have heard this claim many times that DB/2 was the first relational database, or at least IBM's first.
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. According to this page, DB/2 came out in 1981. However, take a look at the System/38 page. It was announced in 1978 and delivered in 1980. The S/38 operating system, CPF, included an integrated relational database system. . As IBM's own 1978 history page says, "The System/38 is the only commercial computer with a built-in relational database". Interestingly I could find no mention in IBM's timeline of DB/2 (same reference). When DB/2 did come out, I assumed at the time that this was the reason for the "2", but I have since read that was not the case.
The S/38 database was carried forward into the AS/400. When DB/2 incorporated int OS/400, it was interoperable with the original "native" database system. We probably should mention something about this feature under DB2 for i. The system allow applications to use database tables and views interchangeably, regardless of whether they are SQL created objects, or "native" DDS created objects. WarrenTea (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup of Page to remove marketing
I've tried to take a shot at cleaning up the page to remove the marketing. There is still a lot there, and it's difficult to untangle. Much of the History section feels like marketing fluff, but I tried to not just delete the whole thing, and instead targetly cut out the marketing words. Any impressions on where to go from here? q (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Merge from IBM DB2 Express-C
Any thoughts on that? IBM DB2 Express-C does not seem to do very well on stand-alone notability, so I think it could be combined with this parent article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Stand-alone article not required for a product variant. ~Kvng (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
"common server" product
- Historically and unlike other database vendors, IBM produced a platform-specific DB2 product for each of its major operating systems. However, in the 1990s IBM changed track and produced a DB2 "common server" product, designed with a common code base to run on different platforms
Is that really true? Aren't large parts of the DB2 z/OS code still written in PL/X? I'd believe that IBM tries to share some feature code between platforms where possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the different DB2 variants are radically different code bases, even written in completely different languages. DB2 for z/OS (and I presume also DB/2 for VM/VSE) contains substantial bodies of code in PL/X, whereas LUW is a PL/X free zone. I'm not sure what DB2 for IBM i is written in – but putting aside the question of implementation language, the radical integration which exists between DB2 and the underlying OS on IBM i almost certainly implies some quite different code and architecture compared to LUW in which that radical integration is absent. (I'm sure IBM marketing wants to downplay the divergence in code between the different DB2 variants, and play up the common code, but I strongly suspect the divergence still outweighs the commonality.) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)