relational ~echnolok inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... ·...

35
Relational ~echnolok Inc. Feature Comparison of INGRES 3.0 & Oracle 4.1.1

Upload: others

Post on 25-Jul-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

Relational ~echnolok Inc.

Feature Comparison of

INGRES 3.0 & Oracle 4.1.1

Page 2: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

Feature Comparison of

INGRES 3.0 & Oracle 4.1.1

April 1, 1985

Page 3: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1

This study was conducted by Relational Technology Inc. (RTI) and is based on the best information available. In particular, we compare Version 3.0 of INGRES with Version 4.1.1 of ORACLE. Care should be taken in using this information because the products described will continue to develop over time. RTI updates this document periodically and appreciates any corrections or additions that can be brought to our attention.

Page 4: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

SECTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

IV .

v .

VI .

VII .

VIII .

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .

. Query Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

. DataTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

. Access Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

. Load Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

. Storage Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

. Database Control/Architecture . . . . . . . . . 19

. Programming Language Interface . . . . . . . . 22

. FormsDefinition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

. Application Development Tools . . . . . . . . . 26

. Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

. Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Page 5: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

PREFACE

This analysis is divided into eleven sections on the query language, data types, access methods, load utility, storage management, database control, programming language interface, forms definition, application development tools, networking and graphics. In general, features where both systems offer the same capabilities are not discussed. This serves to highlight differences between the systems.

Page 6: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RTI feels the most significant points to be noted in the enclosed analysis are:

Performance INGRES wins benchmarks because of its superior query optimizer. See Section I11 on access methods and Section I.

Transaction Management See Section VI for dominant features of INGRES locking and crash recovery facilities.

Storage Management See Section V for details on RTI's more flexible interface to VMS file system.

Programming See Section VII for details on the Language Interface application program interface for both systems

which clearly demonstrates the superiority of the INGRES preprocessor with integrated forms control statements.

VIFRED RTI has a "visual" editor for forms definition. It clearly dominates the traditional ORACLE question/answer approach as noted in Section VIII.

Application Section IX documents the powerful features in Development Tools ABF and compares them with the more primitive

facilities in IAF. ABF uses a 4th generation language.

RTI has a distributed architecture for accessing remote data over computer networks as noted in Section X. INGRES also runs on the VAX cluster, utilizing all concurrency control provided by the VMS lock manager.

GBF RTI has an integrated business graphics package

Page 7: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

Product History

as discussed in Section XI. No such features are present in ORACLE.

The list of enhancements to INGRES over the past three years is extremely impressive, and is significantly larger than Oracle's.

Page 8: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I. QUERY LANGUAGE

FEATURE I INGRES ______---___--_--I_--------------- I I

Arithmetic I Yes f unct ions I

I I _-_________-_----I----------------

ORACLE ----------------

Yes

COMMENTS ......................... I

I INGRES supports ABS ,ATAN, I (arctangent), COS, EXP, I LOG, MOD, SIN, SORT and I supports STTDEV as a mac-1 ro. Users may define I other macros. I

( ~atatype I I ~INGRES has functions such1 Iconversion 1 Yes I Yes las int4, float8, ascii, I Ifunctions I I letc. I

I I I ~INGRES supports CONCAT, I l~tring functions I Yes I Yes LEFT, RIGHT, case conver-( I I I Ision, SUBSTRING, SHIFT I I I 1 land others. I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I l~attern matching I I I I -single wild I

I Yes I Yes I I

I card I I I I I I I I

l~he "[ 1" allows for I

I I I I I I I lmatching of any charac- I I - single wild I I lters or range of charac- I ( card matching I I lters in the brackets. ~orl I a set or rangel Yes I No lexample, where name="[A- I I of values I I I~l*[s,t,yl" will match I I I I lany name that begins with( I I I la capital letter, is £01-1 I I I * llowed by any number of I I I I Iletters, and ends with I I I I 1 ll , ll ll t ll Or I1 ll I I I I I I - string wild I Yes I Yes I I

I I card I I 1 I I I I I I I - phonetic I I I I I pattern I No I Yes 10racle has a Soundex I I matching I I 1 function 1-_____-__-_--_--_1---------------- 1_-_______-____-_1------------------------- I

I

Page 9: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I-----------------I----------------I---------------*l------------------------- I I I I JINGRES has an outer join I I I I lmacros which does the I 1 I I louter join in a single ( I I 1 Iquery. This does not re- I I I I lquire building temporary 1 I I I ltables or copying of any I ]outer join I Yes I Yes ldata. The alternate me- I I I 1 1 thod of performing an I 1 1 1 Jouter join is by a series1 1 I I lo£ queries which includes1 1 I I lcreating a temporary ta- I I I I lble. One way may be morel I I I (efficient, depending on 1 I I I Ithe data or size of I I I I ( tables. I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I l~etrieve data I I l ~ h e "retrieve into" com- I lfrom the I I lmand is a single command I Idatabase into a I Yes I NO lin INGRES which will cre-1 1 new table I I late the table and load it1

I I 1 lwith data. 1_____-_____-----_1----------------I-I--------d-----l------------------------- I

I I I I 11n INGRES, this can be ) I I I [done in 3 commands, with-1

I I I lout unloading the data. I I I I (1n Oracle it can be done I I I I lin a single command, but I /Add a new column l~vailable as I [after data is loaded into1 lat the right side13 QUEL commands I Yes lthe column, records may 1 lof an existing I I [be moved to overflow 1 1 table I 1 Ipages. Since there is no I I I I lway to restructure a ta- I I I I lble, data must be unload-1

I I 1 led and reloaded. The use-1

I I I lfulness of "alter table" I I 1 I (is also limited by not 1 I I I ]being able to copy data I I I I lin an existing table into1

I I I [the new column. I-----------------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I l~dd a new column l~vailable as 3 I~vailable as I I 1 elsewhere in a ~QUEL commands 1 5 SQL commands I 1 1 table I I 1 I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I l ~ r o ~ a column l~vailable as 3 ]Available as I I I 1 QUEL commands 1 5 SQL commands I I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

t

( 7 ) I. QTlERY LANGUAGE

Page 10: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I 1 I l~xcept in the case of in-1 (change datatypes l~vailable as 3 l~vailable as lcreasing character field I [of a column (QUEL commands 15 SOL commands llength, which can be donel I I I lin one Oracle command. I I-----------------I----------------I----------------[------------------------- I I I I I1n INGRES a column in the( I I I Itable being updated can I I I I Ibe set to any expression I I I I lincluding expressions 1 I I I lusing several other ta- I IMulti-table I Yes I No Ibles. The following re- I 1 updates I I /place cannot be done in I I I I loracle's SQL "replace empl I I I I (salary=2*standard.amt) 1 I I I lwhere standard.rating = I I I I lemp.ratingW (give all em-1 I I I (ployees twice the stan- I I I I ldard amount based on this1 I I I [rating category. I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I l~ppend data where1

I I l ~ o r example, add a new I

Ivalue calculated I Yes I No lemployee whose salary 1 lfrom existing I I lis 10% greater than 1 table I I [another's.

I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I 10racle has a "connect I l~ree syntax I No I Yes Iby" function. I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I IMultiple aggre- I I l~uel allows "where I

I lgates grouped by 1 I (clauses" to be applied to1 ldifferent columnsl I leach aggregate. SQL is I land using differ-1 Yes I No llimited to one "having I lent records I I Iclause" and one "group I I I I /byw which applies to all I I I I laggregates in a query. I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I 1 l~either system's SQL is I I I 1 completely IBM compatible1 I I I I(either with SQL/DS or I I I I 1 ~ ~ 2 ) . Datatypes are dif- I ~ I B M compatibility( No I No lferent and functions such1 I I I ]as "union" are missing. I I I I 11n some areas semantics I 1 I I lare also different (i.e. I I I I lgrant and revoke in Ora- / I I 1 lcle v. DB2 SQL) 1----_--__--_-----1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

I. QUERY LANGUAGE

Page 11: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I-----------------I---------------- Ir---------------I------------------------- I I 1 I l~ested queries in Oracle I 1 I I [can be written as flat I I I I lqueies in QUEL. The exam-1 1 I I lples which Oracle uses I I I I [can all be written in I I I I IQUEL. They may not, how-l I I I lever, be able to be writ-( l~pecification of IA S a flat I A S a flat or {ten as flat queries in I 1 joins 1 command lnested command ISQL. The following is one1 I I I [example: "show me who I I I I (makes the most money in I I I I lthe department that has I I I I lthe most employees" I I I I I I

I I I lrange of e is employee I

I I I lrange of d is department I I I I I I I I I [retrieve (e.name) where I I 1 I le.salary = max(e.salary I I I I Iby e.dept where count I I I I I(e.name by e.dept) = I I I I lmax ( count( e.name by 1 I I I Id.dept) 1 ) I I I I I I I I I l~ested queries in Oracle 1 I I I lhave performance problems( I I I lbecause they are proces- I I I I lsed as loops. Oracle ( I I I (never writes nested I I I I lqueries in performance 1 I I I Ibenchmarks. I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I INon-equi-joins ( Yes I Yes I

I I-----------------l----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I t I l ~ h e INGRES optimizer is I I I I Istatistics-based. Infor- I l~erformance of I I lmation about size and I ljoins independent1 Yes I No ldistribution of data is 1 lof specification I I lstored in the data dic- I 1 I I Itionaries. The user never1 I I I [needs to know about sizes1 I I I lof tables or change code ( I I I lin order to reoptimize I I I I lperformance when the data1 I I I I changes. I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

I. QUERY LANGUAGE

Page 12: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I FEATURE I INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS I

I I l~etrieve lperformance lmonitor Iconstants I I

1 I ~QUEL includes several I I 1 Iconstants to assist in I I I lperformance measurements,[ I I lsuch as CPU time,

Yes No I

I I [elapsed time, direct and I f I lbuffered 1/0 requests, I I I [page faults, working set ( I I lsize and physical memory.1

I I I /useful to "can" I I I I loperations or to change I I 1 1 [the keywords of query I I ~acros I Yes I Yes /language. In addition to I I I I lvariable substitution, I I I I 1 INGRES macros also sup- I I I I lport a conditional. I I I I I 1-------_--------_1----------------I--_-------------[------------------------- I

I I I I I I I I I

No Yes I I

l Help I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_---------------_ I J~rimary keys lupdatable I

1"~ange variable" I I I I-----_---_----_-- l~llow execution lo£ DCL commands lin terminal 1 monitor

Yes I Yes I I I I I I I -------------_--I_---------------I-------_----------------- I

I I l~ptional for both sys- I I Items. Allows joins of I

Yes I Yes [tables themselves (re- 1 I lflexive joins) and pro- I I lvides a shorthand for I I (referring to tables. -------_-_------I----------------I------------------------- I

I

Yes Yes I I

1-----------------1----------------I---------------- I I I I l~ntegrity

I I I Yes I NO

[constraints I I I I I I I I

......................... INGRES supports true

I I

integrity constraints I such as range of values I and forcing of capital I letters at the database I level. I

I. QUERY LANGUAGE

Page 13: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

1_______----------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I I1n addition to permitting1 I I I /users to perform opera- I I I I Itions by columns and re- I 1 permits I Yes 1 Yes lcords (based on values in1 I I I Idatabase), permits can I 1 I 1 lspecify time of day, day ( I I 1 lo£ week and terminal in I I I I I INGRES . I-----------------I----------------I----------------[------------------------- I

I 1 I I I In INGRES any query can I I I I [be stored as a view and I 1 views I Yes 1 Yes la11 queries against views1 I I I ]are valid (even if both I 1 I 1 lviews and queries have I I 1 I laggregates). I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I~es; single & I~es; single I

I l~iew updating llimited multi- Itable only

I I 1 table

I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I 1 ~INGRES data dictionary I 1 1 1 lconsists of an extensive 1 I I I /set of tables that de- I I 1 I lscribe user tables and I 1 Data 1 I lviews, including the co- I [dictionary I Yes I Yes llumn name, datatype, I I I I llength and types of in- I I I I Idexes. In addition, all I 1 I I Iforms, reports, graphs I I I I land applications are I I I I Istored in the data dic- ( I I 1 ltionary which allows I I I I ~INGRES to control access I 1 I I land sharing. 1--------------__-1----------------1----------------1------------------------- I [can data

I I I IIn INGRES, QUEL commands I

ldictionary be I Yes I Yes lor QBF can be used to ac-1 I queried? I I lcess the data dictionary I I I I ( tables. 1--_____--__------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I 11s the data

I I I 11n both systems views can1

[dictionary I Yes I Yes Ibe defined to expand the I lextensible? I I [information stored in the1 I I I [data dictionary. 1--------------_--1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

I. QUERY LANGUAGE

Page 14: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I I. DATA TYPES

I FEATURE I INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I [use of native mode data ~VAX floating I I ltypes allows INGRES to [point format I Yes I No /take advantage of the I I I [machine instruction set. 1_________________1----------------I----------------~------------------------- I I I I ~ V A X integer I I (simulated by ORACLE with 1 format I Yes 1 No (decimals. VAX integer I I I /instructions not used by

I I I 1 ORACLE. I I I I

~ V A X packed I I I 1 decimal format I No I No I I I I I l~ecimals coded I I I lbase 100 per I No I Yes I lcharacter I I I I I I I 1__---------------1----------------1----------------1------------------------- I I I I l~bsolute dates I Yes I Yes le.g.r "January 7, 1983" I I I l~ate ranges I Yes I No le.g., "25 days"

I

I I I I l~elative dates ( Yes I No le.g., "Today" I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I I I I one y I Yes I yes I I I I I I I

I I I l ~ o r INGRES (up to 2008 1 lcharacter strings1 Yes I Yes Ibytes). The largest text I I I I lstring in INGRES supports1 l~ong character I Yes I Yes lfull update and pattern- I [strings (>256 1 I Imatching. I

I bytes) I I I I I I I I

Page 15: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

111. ACCESS METHODS

I FEATURE I INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS I

l~rimary key l~pecified in [specified in I I [access path I I I I I - hash I I I I I I I I I I - index I sequential

I (ISAM) I I

I I 1 - B+ tree I I I I I I I I I I Iconcatenated I keys

IWmodify" command~"cluster" or I I "create index" I 1 command

I Yes I NO I I

I t I I I

Yes I Yes I I

I I I I I I I I I I l ~ h e hash storage struc- I Jture is the structure of I lchoice when doing re- I ltrieves based upon an ex-/ lact match of a unique (or1 Inearly unique) key. I IINGRES supports compres- 1 lsed and non-compressed ( lhash structures. I I I I I l ~ h e isam storage struc- I 1 ture is fast when re- I ltrieving data sorted by I Ikey, as the data is clus-( 1 tered by key. INGRES I lsupports compressed and 1 Inon-compressed isam (structures.

I I

I I l ~ h e b-tree storage struc-1 lture is recommended for I lretrieving data sorted byl 1 key, and is recommended I lfor dynamic applications I [where many rows are being/ linserted and deleted. I ~INGRES supports compres- I lsed and non-compressed I Ib-tree structures. I I I I~aximum number of fields I [in a primary key: I 1 INGRES no limit) 1 oracle 240 characters1 I - I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - I

I

Page 16: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I 1 I l ~ n y number of indexes can1 (secondary key lspecified in lspecif ied in I be created in either laccess path I"lndexM command 1"create index" (system.

I 1 command

I I I I I I I I I 1

I - hash I I I I - index I I sequential I I I I - B+ tree I I 1 I I [concatenated I 1 indexes I I I I I

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

I I I

No I

I I I I I I

No 1 I I I

Yes I I I I I I

Yes I~aximum number of fields I (in a secondary index: I I I 1 INGRES 6 columns ( 1 oracle 240 characters1 I I

I I I I I I lcluster records I I l~hen isam or b-tree is I lfrom 2 relations I No I Yes lused as the main storage ( Ion a single disk I 1 Istructure, the data rows I

l page I 1 lare clustered together, I I I Iso that I/Os are mini- I

I I I lmized for range searches.1 I 1 I laowever, clustering in I I 1 I lthe sense of physically I I I 1 Istoring rows from dif- I I I I lferent tables together is1 I I I lnot supported in INGRES. I I I I I 1__________--_---_1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

111. ACCESS MFPHODS

Page 17: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

IV. LOAD UTILITY

I FEATURE I INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS I

l~umber of I Icommands to load 1 1 I I

I 3

I

la file into a I I I 1 table I I I 1_----------______1---------------- I I [variable length 1 Irecords in file I Yes Ito be loaded I I I I-----------------I----------------

----------------

Yes

----------------

......................... I I

In Oracle, the last field] only can be variable length.

I I

......................... I 1

I I (variable length I lfields in file I Ito be loaded 1

I I I

Yes I NO I I

1 I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I lstarting byte I [position of No

I Yes

I I I

1 fields must be I I I I

1 known I I I

I I I I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I

I Any one byte I No separators I I

I l~ield separators I pattern can be I -- a11 fields I

I I

I 1 a separator. I are fixed I 1 length except I

I I I

I last. I

I I I I I I I I 1-----_-__--------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

Page 18: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

V. STORAGE MANAGEMENT

I FEATURE I INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS 1________--_------1----------------1----------------[---------------------&--- I

I I I I I

I~anagement of INGRES I

I I I Idatabases does not

I I I I

Irequire a lot of DBA I

I I I I l~ables can I I Imaintenance. In Oracle, ( lgrow dynamically I I lif a table grows larger I lwithout pre- I Yes I No lthan the limit specified I 1 defined limit I 1 lwhen it was created, the I 1 I I ldata must be unloaded and1 I I I lreloaded, the table re- I I I I lcreated along with in- I

(dexes, views, etc. I 1_____-----_--____1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I l~efault maximum 1 I I I Irelation size ( None I 60K Bytes I I I I I

I I (space allocated 1

I lsystem administrator

I I

lautomatically as 1 Yes I No lmust manually allocate I Idatabase grows. I I I

[new files for ORACLE use.1 I I 1__----_-_-_-----_1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I IINGRES looks for, but I l~ontiguous space I No 1 No [doesn't require contig- I I needed. I I luous space. I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I Ispace freed for I I 1 I Inon-database I Yes I No I I luse if tables I I I I lare deleted. I I 1 I I I I I 1_________________1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I l~ree space on ( I ~INGRES tries to fit new I lpages (blocks) I Yes I No Irecords into existing I Ireused when new I I lfree space on pages. I Irecords are added] 1 loracle only uses free I I I 1 lspace on pages when ex- I I I 1 listing records are I I I I 1 updated. 1-----_----__--_--1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

Page 19: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

1_________-----__-1----------------1----------------1------------------------- IErnpty blocks

I I I I

Yes No I

/freed for non- I I I Idatabase use

I I I I 1________---------1----------------1----------------1------------------------- I

I 1 I I 11n INGRES, the "modify" I I I I lcommand allows you to I I I I Ireorganize the table 1 able

I 1 I lwithout unloading the I

/reorganization ( Yes I No Idata. In Oracle, re- 1 1 command I I lorganization (for space I 1 1 I Ireclaimation) requires I 1 I I lunloading and reloading I I I I 1 the data. I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I l~urnber of

I I I I I I I

Idatabases on a I Unlimited 1 Unlimited I I I

lgiven computer I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I I I l~atabases on I ldifferent VMS 1 Yes

I I Yes

I 1 volumes

I I I I I I I

I I 1 I 1-----------------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I

I I I ~INGRES can have tables 1 I I I lwithin a database on l~ables in a

I I 1 lseveral different logicall

lsingle database I Yes 1 Yes lor physical volumes, and I Ion different I I lthe user can relocate I 1 volumes I I ltables dynamically. I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I l~ccounting

I I I I

linformation on I I I

Yes I Yes ldisk space

I I I I

I I I I

[Enforceable disk I Yes I No I I (quotas per user I I I I I I I I 1--_______-----_--1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I l~ata compression ( I I

Yes I Yes I

l~ptional in both systems./ I I

V. STORAGE MANAGEMENT

Page 20: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

1____________----_1----------------I----------------l------------------------- Isupport for

I I I I

(VAX hardware I

I I I lcluster control- I

I 1 I B ~ using the VMS distri- I

ller, i.e., multi-1 I 1 buted lock manager, luser access to a I Yes I No ~INGRES is able to take I

I Idatabase on a 1 1 /full davantage of the ( Icluster-disk, 1 I IVMS cluster support. lavailable from I

I I I

la11 machines I

I I I lattached to the I

I I

1 cluster I I

I I I [controller

I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

V. STORAGE MANAGEMENT

Page 21: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

VI. DATABASE CONTROL/ARCHITECTURE

1 FEATURE I INGRES 1 ORACLE 1 COMMENTS 1

Jmanagement- I I I I 1 locking 1 I I I I I I I I I - Relation levell I 1

Yes Yes I

1 locks I 1 1 1 I (coarse I I I I I granularity) 1 I I 1 I I I I I ( - Page level 1 Yes 1 No I I locks I 1 I 1 (fine 1 I I I granularity) I I I I - Record level I NO 1 Yes 10racle can record level I I locks I

/lock for reads only; all I /updates require a table I (level lock. By not auto-l lmatically locking out the1 lentire table whenever an I 1 update occurs, INGRES I (permits good multi-user 1 lconcurrency control, and I lavoids much deadlock I lwhich would otherwise I l occur. I

I I I - Coarse or f inel I granularity I I selected 1 I automatically I I 1 I - Any command I I canrunat I I coarse or I I fine granu- I I larity I I I

- Lock escala- I tion to coarse1 granularity if1 number of finel granularity I locks gets [

I too large I I I

I Yes

I I I 1 I I

Yes I I I I I I I

Yes I I I I

l~scalating locks to table1 (level may be wise in 1

No lsome cases where overhead1 lof maintaining lots of I llocks is expensive. I I I I I

No I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

No I I I I I I I I

Page 22: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I--- --------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- ~INGRES will set page

I I I I I 1 I I (level locks until the ( 1 1 I loverhead becomes too ex- I I 1 I lpensive, and then will I I I I (escalate to a table levell I I I llock after 10 pages are I I I I llocked for a single ta- I I I I Ible. The user can set I I 1 1 Ithis number of pages be- I I I I Ifore escalation on a ses-1 I I I Ision basis or on a table I I I I (by table basis. The opti-1 1 1 I lmizer will set a table I I I I /lock immediately if it I I~ser-controllablel I lestimates that a query I ( locking I Yes I Yes lwill need to lock more I I I I lpages than the maximum 1 I I I /which you specify. In ad-l I I I Idition, read locks can be1 1 I I 1 set to none, shared, or 1 I I I lexclusive. Users can also1 I I I [specify how long to wait ( I I 1 (for a lock. Oracle pro- ( I I I lvides a lock table com- 1 1 I 1 lmand in which type of I I I I (lock (shared, exclusive) ( 1 I I lcan be specified. I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I ~INGRES transactions can ( /save points I Yes 1 No Ibe rolled back by the I I I 1 luser to any number of I I I I [intermediate save points.[ I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I~ulti- I 1 I I lstatement I Yes I Yes 1 ltransactions

I I I I I

I I l~ransaction I (management- I 1 recovery I I I I - Recovery from I 1 disk intact 1 1 crashes I I I ( - Recovery from I I "datalost" I I crashes I I I l ~ b i l i t ~ to query I (log file I I I I I

I I I I I I

Yes I I I I

Yes I I I I

Yes I I I

I I I I I I 1 I I I I I

Yes I I I I I I I

Yes I

I I I I I I IThe user can copy the log/

No If ile into a table and I !query against this audit ( I trail. I

( 2 0 ) VI. DATABASE CONTROL/ARCHITECTURE

Page 23: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I lobject put in log1 I (page logging requires I (file I Records 1 Pages !much more space than I I I I Irecord locking. Recovery1

I I I [may be faster, but hope- I I I I lfully you do not need it I I I I loften. In INGRES, loggingl I I I lis an integral part of I I I I loverall transaction I I I I lmanagement and therefore I I I I llittle overhead is in- I I I I ( curred. I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - .........................

I I I

I I I I I l~orruption of I I l~his is questionable for I Idatabase limited I Yes 1 No loracle clustering me- I I to tables I I lchanism and the fact that1 lbeing accessed at1 I la11 tables are stored in I lthe time of the I I la single file. I ( failure. I I I I I I I I 1____-_-----_---_-1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I 1 I I l~eparate processes for ( I I 1 1 front and backend pro- I I I I lcessing permit easy im- I I I I lplementation of network- I I I I 1 ing, and allow processing 1 I~ultiple process I I Ito be shared between sev-1 larchitecture I Yes I No leral CPUs. It will become1 I I I leven more important in I I I I lthe distributed database I I 1 I Iworld. Oracle runs a I 1 I 1 lminimum of 6 processes I I I I [for the 1st user and one/l I I I luser after the first. 1--_---------_-_--1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I Ishared (global) I

I I 11n addition, INGRES also I

(buffer I Yes I Yes luses local buffers. I I I I I 1____-------------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

(21) VI. DATABASE CONTROL/ARCHITECTURE

Page 24: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

VII. PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE INTERFACE

I FEATURE I INGRES 1 ORACLE I COMMENTS I I-----------------I----------------I----------------[------------------------- I I I I I

l~reprocessor ICall-level I

I I I(~ame natural linterface (Com- I

I I

~QUEL Syntax for lplex sequence I I

I l~asic structure la11 programming lo£ subroutine I

I [languages) -- I calls)

I I I

IFORTRAN, C, FORTR RAN, COBOL, I I

I /BASIC, COBOL, I C

I I I I I 1 PASCAL I I 1 I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I l~escription of l~utomatically I 1 I [variables used lobtained from I I lfor return of [normal host ~~utomaticall~ I

I ldata or input of llanguage

I I I

Irun-time query (declarations I I

I lspecification I

I I I I

I I I I I

l~lacement of var-11n place of con-11n place of liables in a querylstants, field [constants only I lnames, relation I I lnames, qualifi- I I I cat ions I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------

lwork area for Idone by pre- linterface I I 1-----------------1---------------- I I l~inding of pro- (Automatically lgramming languageldone by pre- [variables to a lprocessor

I query I I

QUEL commands can be dynamically created

I in a program.

I I t I

......................... I I

I I I -------_-------_I------------------------- I I

Automatic I I I I

I I I I l~rror handling l~utomatic or l~utomatic 1 I [user controlled I I I I I I I 1---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1----------------I-_-------_------~-----------------_-_----- I

I

Page 25: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I (~teration over a [Automatic I~anually done by1

I lcollection of I lprogrammer I I

1

Ireturned records I I I I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I l~ompatibility I lwithSQL/DSor I

I I I I

I D B ~ programming I NO I I I 1

No I

1 language I I. I I linterface I I I I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I IMultiple cursors I No

I I I Yes I

I I I I

I I I (1n INGRES, queries which I 1 I I lwill be run many times I I I I lwithin an application 1 1 I I lwith perhaps different ( I I I Jconstants can be marked I l~aved query I I I "repeat1'. The query exe- I 1 plans I Yes I No lcution plans will then be1 I I 1 lsaved which results in I I I I lsignificant performance I 1 I 1 [gains since the overhead I I I I lo£ paring and optimizing I I I I Jis eliminated. I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I lcomplete forms control I I I I I (clear field, move cur- I I I I Isor, etc.) is supported I I I I [within EQUEL. Also, forms1 [Ability to I I lcan be compiled for use I 1 call forms in I Yes I No [within an EQUEL program. I 1 host language I I l~his gives you the abil- I 1 program I I lity to write any forms I I I I lapplication using only I 1 I I IINGRES' integrated tools./ I I I l ~ l l of INGRES' user in- I I I I lterfaces are EQUEL/FORMS I I I I Iprograms. I

I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------[-------------------------l

VII. PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE INTERFACE

Page 26: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

VIII. FORMS DEFINITION

1 FEATURE 1 INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I

I 1 visual I I

I 1 programming -- I ~uest ion/

I I

I I

l~asic mechanism l~hat you see is lanswer system I I

I lwhat you get" [of IAF I

I (VIFRED) I

I I

I I I

I I I I I-----------------I----------------t----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I

l~ositional I I

linformation not I I

Yes I

No I

1 required I I

I I

I I I I I I

I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I I

I I~odification of lsarne as initial lseveral methods-1

I lform definition ldefinition Inone the same as1

I

I 1 1 original I

Idefinition. I

I I I

I I I I I

I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I

I ( ~ a t a fields in lsingle form lsingle form

I I

la form lmay display lmay display I I I

I ldata from one [data from one I I

I lor multiple lor multiple I

1 tables 1 tables I

1 I

I I I I I

I I

l~cientific I I 1 Yes lnotation I I NO I

I Isupported I I I

I

I I I I I

1___-___----------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I

Page 27: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I FEATURE I INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS 1_----------------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I l~ields that I I I I Joccupy multiple I Yes I No I 1 lines on the

I I I I

1 screen I

I I I I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I I~ultiple records 1 I l~hen multiple records are1 Idisplayed on a 1 Yes I Yes Idisplayed, INGRES auto- ( [single Form I I ]matically provides scrol-1 I I I (ling forward and backwardl I I I I I

l~efault forms I Yes I Yes I 1 lfor single tables1 I I I I 1 I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I ~INGRES supports default I I I I lforms which can be used I I I I 1 for appending, deleting, I I I I lupdating or querying data1 I I I lfrom multiple tables. l~efault forms I

I I l~efault forms for mul- 1

lfor multiple I Yes I No ltiple tables handle up- I 1 tables I I Idate of join fields, re- I 1 I I lferential integrity and I I I I [cascading deletes auto- I 1 I I [matically. Master detail I I I I lrelationships may be

I shown. I

I 1 I I I I I I 1----------------_1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I l~orms definition I

I Yes I NO 11n INGRES this allows (

(stored in I I [forms to be shared among I 1 database I 1 (many applications. I I I I I 1----_--_______-__1----------------I----------------l---_--------------------- I

I I I I I I I I I IINGRES allows boxing of I 1 ~dvanced video I Yes I Yes Ifields, highlighting, [attributes

I I I lintensity changes, under-1

I I I llining and blinking. I I I I I 1 - - - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - I - - - - -----------_________-_I--

I I I

( 2 5 ) VIII. FORMS DEFINITION

Page 28: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

IX. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT TOOLS

I FEATURE I INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS I-----------------I----------------I----------------l-------------------------

I I

1 1 I ~INGRES supports the con- ( I l ~ u e r ~ By Forms l~nteractive Jcept of visual program- I I I(for simple ap- l~~~lication (ming, which allows naive I (Basic structure Iplications), (Facility (IAF) (users to quickly build 1 I l~pplication By I [applications using forms-1

I l~orms (for com- I (based approaches. From I I 1 plex applica- 1 Ithe filling in of forms 1 I 1 t ions) I lto create default reportsl

I I I land screens, to the I I I 1 Iscreen-painting editors I I I I lwhich allow users to cus-1

1 I I Itomize the appearance of ( I 1 I lthe reports and screens, I I I I ~INGRES is ideal for rapidl

I I I [prototyping and applica- I I I I Ition development. I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l-------------------------

I I

I I I I I 14th Generation 1 I l~pplications are written I 1 ~anguage I Yes/OSL I No 1 in OSL. ABF produces I I I I lexecutables in "c." I I I I I I

(Form bound to a I Optional I Yes I l relation I I I

l~eports can be I I 1 lintermixed with 1 Yes I NO I lregular forms in I I I )an application. 1 1 I I I I I

I I 1 ~raphs can be I 1 intermixed with I Yes I No I 1 1 regular forms. I I I I I I I I 1__---------------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I I I By selecting l~ext form or I I (control flow out \from named (previous form or( 1 [of a form. loptions at ldirect menu I I I lbottom of screenlselection 1 I I lor filling in 1 I I I ( fields. I I I I I I I 1__-----------__--1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

Page 29: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I I I I l~ext field in 1Any field in A B F ~ N ~ X ~ field 1 lthe form to be land EQUEL/Forrns.land previous I I [processed l~ext field and [field only I I I lprevious field I I I I 1 in QBF. I I I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I I I I \using the 4th Generation 1 I 1 I lprogramming language OSL,I

I I I lapplication designers can1 (conditional flow I I [direct control to pass I (of control in 1 Yes I No !different forms within an1 1 appl icat ion I I lapplication. Applications1 1 permitted I I ldesigned using INGRES/ABF~ I I I lhave their order of pro- I I I I lcessing completely under ( I I I lthe control of the appli-1

I I I lcation designer. I I I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I 1 I I I 1 I A ~ application designer I I I I lmay stop at any point I I 1 I (within ABF to test what 1 I I I /has been developed thus I I I I Ifar, make changes and 1 l~ble to test 1 I lcontinue to develop the ( lpartially I I (application. ABF handles( 1 complete 1 Yes I No la11 necessary linking and1 lapplications 1 I Icompiling, and knows not I I I I Ito recompile a portion of1

I I I lthe application if no ( I I I lchanges have been made. I I I I l~eveloper is free to de- I I 1 I lfine pieces of applica- I I 1 I Ition in any order. I I I I I I I I I I 1--______________-1----------------I----------------l------------------------- 1

I

IX. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT TOOLS

Page 30: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

I I I ~ABF permits escape to the1

I 1 I [operating system level I l~ble to exit I I lfrom within an applica- 1 [to system level 1 Yes 1 NO (tion(forexample,to I land return to I I Iread mail) and then a re-1 lapplication 1 1 Jturn to the point of de- I 1 I I lparture within the appli-1

I I I 1 cat ion. I I I I I 1_________________1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I I I I I I I 1 l ~ h e application designer I I~ulti-statement I I lcan decide what consti- I Jtransactions I I ltutes a transaction ra- I \within an I I Ither than leaving this ( lapplication I I (critical decision to the I I I 1 lend-user. In Oracle, com-1

I 1 I Imit is only controlled by1

I I I l t h e user. I

I I I I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I

I I I he fact that syntax is I 1 0uery language I I lchecked at compile time, ( lsyntax checked 1 Yes I No lrather than run time,

lsaves a siginficant I

Jat compile time I I I I I I lamount of time and aggra-1

I I I I vation. I

I I I ~INGRES supports commands I I I I (for use by the applica- I [screen control I 1 Ition designer (or by the I ( commands I Yes I Yes lend-user) such as clear ( I I I (screen, move cursor, is- ( I I I lsue prompt and issue

I message. I

I I I I

I 1 I lone of the supported I I 1 I lscreen control commands I I I I lis "issue message" which I I I I lcan be done independently1 l ~ a n a message be I I [of any query language I 1 issued from I I [command. To put a message1 [within an 1 Yes 1 No (to the screen in IAF re- I \application I I lquires a database state- 1 1 without accessing 1 I lment to have been execu- I Idatabase? 1 I Ited. Oracle even suggests1

I I I [setting up a dummy table I 1 1 I /to use in these situa- I I I I I t ions. I___---____-------)----------------I----------------l-------------------------

I I

IX. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT TOOLS

Page 31: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

1______---____--_-1---_------------1----------- I I I I I I I 1 Any event can be 1 Run an SQL [Triggered events (triggered with lcommand or lwhen a field is ~ABF or EQUEL/ lcommands 1 entered 1 Forms I I I I I I I I I I I I I

_----(-------__---------------- 1 l~riggered events in 1 ~INGRES might be a series I lo£ QUEL commands, forms I lcommands such as messages1 lor display another form. 1 /There is condition con- I ltrol for triggers. Events1 (can be triggered at any I ltime - not just commit / I time. I

l~diting of input ldata in a field I 1 I______------_---_ I l~dit checks on [input data into la field in a form I I I I-------_--------- I l~uplicate field 1 value I I I----------------- I lEscape to a pro- lgramming language Ito process field

Character [character I I editing, leditingonly I I Word editing I I I

I I ----------------I----------------I------------------------- I I

I )In INGRES, you can per- 1 Datatype, I Datatype, lform arbitrarily complex I length, cross- 1 length, cross- ledit checks in ABF, using 1 table, I table, IQUEL statements or I mandatory luniqueness IEQUEL/FORMS. I

lmandatory I 1 I I ----------------I----------------[-------------------------- I

I I I I I I I

Yes I NO I I I 1 I I I I __-----__-------I-------_--------I------------------------- I I I I

Yes(ABFand I I EQUEL/FOK~S) I Yes I I

I I (user exits) I I

l~ata passed to \All data on 1All data on the ) I lcalled program (screen or in Iscreen. I I I lhidden fields. I I I I I I I 1---___--------_-_1----------------I----------------~----------__------------- I

I I I I I ]compiling and l~utomatically I No service 1 flinking programs \performed by ABF~ 1

IX. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT TOOLS

Page 32: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

1____________--___1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I I I I I I~aintenance of l~utomatically I No service I

I I

1 programs I

Istorage of pro- l~utomatically I No service I (grams in correct (performed by ABF~

I I

ldirectory I

I I I t I I I I I-----------------j----------------I----------------l-------------------------

I I

I 1 I I I l~rbitrar~ query I Yes (ABF and I Yes [specified by I EQUEL/Forms) (

I I 1 input of data I

I I lvalues in a form I No (QBF)

I I 1 I I I

I I I I I-----------------i----------------l----------------l------------------------- I I

I I I I l~uilt in support lover 130 (support for many1

I (for terminals 1 different JCRTS for a given)

I

lterminals lmachine are I

I I Isupplied.

I I I I I I I I I I

Ifunctionkeys I Yes I Yes I I I I I I 1-__----__----_---1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

IX. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT TOOLS

Page 33: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

X. NETWORKING

1 FEATURE 1 INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS ----------_------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I

Application pro- I I I

Yes NO 1 I I

I gram runnable on I (transparent / a separate I networking) I

I I machine from the I

I I DBMS istr tribute dl

I I I I I - I

Access) I I I I

1 database I

ow ever, INGRES/NET per- 1 hits distributed proces- 1 sing, whereby users using1 INGRES front-ends on sev-1 era1 CPUs may simulta- 1 neously access an INGRES ( database. Also, INGRES/ I Cluster permits the use I of the VAX Cluster to al-1 low users on several CPUS~ to simultaneously access I a common database. True I distributed database pro-1 cessing is currently be- I ing worked on at RTI un- I der a National Science I (~oundation grant. I

Page 34: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

XI. GRAPHICS

I FEATURE I INGRES I ORACLE I COMMENTS I-----------------I----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I I

I I I I I~istograms of I I

Yes I I

Idatabase data I 1 No I I I I I I I l ~ i e charts of I [database data I Yes

I I No

I I I I

I I I I I Ix-Y plots of I ldatabase data I

I Yes

I No

I I I I

I I [scatter plots of I Yes

I I No

I ldatabase data I

I I I I I I

I I 1 I I I I I I 1-----------------1----------------I----------------l------------------------- I

I

Page 35: Relational ~echnolok Inc.archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/... · 2019-12-17 · FEATURE COMPARISON OF INGRES 3.0 AND ORACLE 4.1.1 This study was conducted by

R E L A T I O N A L 6 T E C H N O L O G Y

Rdatiional Technology Inc. 2855 Tetegraph R u e Berkeley, CA 94305 415.845-170 0

I