Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!kodak!deal
From: deal@kodak.UUCP (Stephen M. Deal)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Ingres vs Sybase
Message-ID: <1876@kodak.UUCP>
Date: 8 May 89 16:08:46 GMT
References: <4306@elecvax.eecs.unsw.oz> <2350@canisius.UUCP>
Reply-To: deal@kodak.UUCP (Stephen M. Deal)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY
Lines: 33

In article <2350@canisius.UUCP> Greg Pavlov (alias Bill Elgie) writes:
>In article <4306@elecvax.eecs.unsw.oz>, ykchan@elecvax.eecs.unsw.oz (Yk Chan) writes:
>> I am starting a database project on unix.  
>> I have access to Ingres and Sybase.
>> Anyone out there in the net has comment 
>> on the pro's and con's of Ingres vs Sybase.
>
>  You are in an ideal situation: you have access to your range of choices.
>  If the application is important, the absolutely best thing that you can do
>  is to design and implement a subset of it under both dbms packages.  Throw in
>  a few kinks (like several really large tables) to push the two.

I guess if performance is critical to your application then you should benchmark
the performance of each. Just make sure that you compare apples to apples.

On the other hand application development tools may be important because 
you want to do quick prototypes and minimize the amount of esql and C.
If so then you may want to look at the capabilities that the 
Application Tools (I dislike the term 4GL) each of the DBMS vendors
provides. 

Using the approach that Greg mentioned, implement a small subset of the 
application(s) that you plan to build and see what kind of work it takes.
Even if you do this without the Application Tools using ANSI SQL and ANSI C 
you will learn a great deal.


about the underlying DBMS.
-- 
    Steve Deal	 UUCP: ..rutgers!rochester!kodak!deal

    Disclaimer:	"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, 
		 the above is mine and not that of my employer."