4 ms·

1TB transaction per year seems pretty small data. I guess IBM stuffs are there for the stability then?

• awestroke 3y ago
  The IBM stuff is pure legacy. Of course this would all perform much better with modern tools, like Postgres.
  • accra4rx 3y ago
    Just because IBM stuff is legacy doesnot means it is slow. Almost nobody is moving from a commercial database (Db2 for z/OS) to PostgreSQL because of performance. It is all to do with huge licensing cost. Talk to any veterans nothing matches the speed and stability of mainframe. search about z16 (tell me anything that guarantees 9 nines of availability)
  • akdkdiwnsa 3y ago
    Eh DB2 is still a pretty good database all things considered. At the end of the day it's pretty much exactly like every other modern SQL database, and it's relatively polished given its been around since the beginning. As a programmer at a bank, we are heavy into DB2 but I also get to use plenty of more trendy databases, and I think if you got rid of branding and blindfolded people or whatever, the vast majority of backend programmers wouldn't be able to tell them apart or pick db2 out of a lineup.
• dan-robertson 3y ago
  Using DB/2 surely makes a lot of sense for integration with the rest of their IBM tech but also something the new system could presumably talk to too. I would guess that it performs ok at the kind of ‘single big OLTP database server’ tasks it was meant for. Notably IBM allows you to publish benchmarks for their databases (so long as you provide detailed methodology and take steps to tune it correctly) whereas Oracle and SQLServer do not allow publishing benchmarks without permission. Though one could argue this is just IBM feeling like benchmark performance wouldn’t matter much to their customers.