DB2 is a family of relational database software solutions offered by IBM. It includes standard Db2 and Db2 Warehouse editions, either deployable on-cloud, or on-premise.
$0
Oracle Database
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Oracle Database, currently in edition 23ai, is a converged, multimodel database management system. It is designed to simplify development for AI, microservices, graph, document, spatial, and relational applications.
Db2 for i SQL is much more standard compliant than SQL Servers dialect. And with Visual Explain its much easier to optimize SQL queries for optimal performance.
Db2 provides a combination of performance and scalability. Security wise, Db2 is always a first choice, especially for the systems where security can't be compromised. For mainframe systems, there is no other DB in the market that can perform better than Db2. If an organization …
IBM Db2 in my organization has had overall a much better consistency rating and effectiveness. Turnaround times are shorter and the need for human intervention is significantly less. We find Db2 to be more reliable overall and a better experience to use. In terms on real time …
From working with other databases, I always felt that Db2 was at the top of its game in all aspects of performance, recoverability, and stability—pretty much everything you want out of an Enterprise database system.
Access controls, encryption, and auditing
capabilities are just a few of the strong security features supported by IBM Db2.I think Strong security features are offered by it, such as integration with Active Directory and LDAP enterprise security infrastructures, row and column …
we have felt Db2 with enhance capability stands better than oracle offering and cost benefit is also there with features like better security and better integration with analytical engines and provision for XML, JSON, text and spatial data formats for different kinds of …
Considering Price, features configurations timelines of the IBM Db2 we found that is very Robust in Scalability, Reliability, Highly Available. also, we are already a IBM products user and we are much satisfied with the overall product as well as customer support from IBM team. …
Db2 is more scalable, reliable, and easily configurable than all the products that we evaluated. We were already using some of the services provided by IBM and were satisfied with the support and pricing. This led us to select Db2 as our database management system.
Compared to similar products, Db2 shared common Relational DataBase Management System (RDBMS) features such as SQL support, data integrity, Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation and Durability (ACID) Compliance and concurrency control. However, the Db2 is designed for scalability, …
Tried tested true and dependable. Main distinguishing factor however is the ongoing time in which it has been relied on, the preference by some stakeholders for ensuring sensitive data security, and its flexibility
Db2 is one of the oldest and mature rdbms available in the market. IBM products were already been used in the organization. Cost effective in terms of licensing.
We tried MS SQL. However, MS SQL is one of the most widely used in enterprise management. However, that is mostly compatible with Microsoft services and does not provide much strength with outside applications. db2 is also open-independent and compatible with cross-platforms, …
We are working for our product , where we were using different database but that database was not fast our work So we switch to IBM Db2 for better result.
DB2 works as good as any of these databases. It is cheaper to run than any of them. It is more solid and stable that SQL server or Netezza. It is very comparable to Oracle for reliabilty.
But for administration, Netezza is a little simpler because it has no indexes. Netezza is …
DB2 was more scalable and easily configurable than other products we evaluated and short listed in terms of functionality and pricing. IBM also had a good demo on premise and provided us a sandbox experience to test out and play with the product and DB2 at that time came out …
We currently use all of the above database technologies in different applications, but where the application is mission-critical we use Oracle. Microsoft SQL Server is good for canned applications such as back-office or HR. MySQL does not have the same level of logging or …
We use IBM DB2 in AS400 to handle part of our accounting system and our legacy ERP. We are migrating all functionalities to Oracle Database 12c because it is more secure and stable. We have some applications using SQL Server but we want to handle those systems in it because at …
IBM DB2 is extremely heavy as compared to Oracle and is expensive for the price we pay for the product. MySQL doesn’t have most of the features that Oracle has.
Oracle is placed in a good spot against its competitors. It has advantages over its competitors in its legacy stability and high availability. A common engine to handle relational, JSON, Vector, and graph data makes it more cost-effective. Given all the good features, the …
Oracle 12c is good for all business applications but still consider Microsoft SQLServer for internal/other applications to save on cost.
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Oracle Database
I have selected Oracle database from other databases as this database is relational database which stored the data in structural and tabular format which is better than any other databases which I have used in my carrier. Also MongoDB is no SQL database where we can use SQL …
Oracle Database is best in business, consistent, and robust. Even the standard version is sufficient for the best performance. The main thing is I have never seen corruption and in my opinion, it is best when used with Linux.
We use SQL Server for other modules of our MLFF Tolling System, so I work on a daily basic with both database engines. Oracle is recognized and distinguished by scalability and performance, ensuring a secure environment to host our critical data that comes from multiple …
In my opinion, Oracle Database is highly reliable, has better performance with large databases and little to no maintenance once everything is setup. Also, recovery of the Oracle database is much simpler and easier.
Microsoft SQL is just as stable and almost as sellable with a much lower cost of ownership (staff and licensing). But as our primary application doesn't support Microsoft SQL we had to license Oracle.
Oracle Database is among the easiest to integrate with, program against, have a reliable cluster with DR, and has the most understood and well-documented databases. It suits really well if the software shop is primarily Java-based, and deals with large volumes of data with a …
Oracle is more of an enterprise-level database than Access and SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise isn't getting developed much (some people wonder how close it is to end of life) but SQL Server is miles ahead of Oracle IMO in terms of user experience and comparable in terms of …
Oracle Database 12c is head and shoulders above SQL Server for what we need it to do, and the performance is much better. Oracle Database has been in place at our company for a while, and it was really a no brainer going to Oracle Database version 12c instead of another …
While I was not available for the original selection, the reason I have fought to keep it in place and not change is mainly due to performance and security. The company has sought other options, however, I continue to maintain that this is the best course of action in our …
We used SQL Server mainly because customers have some legacy applications that can only run on that environment, but SQL Server is good as well. It is easiest to manage users privileges, set up maintenance plans or create a new database from scratch by just using a backup file. …
I have been a SQL Server focused professional for over 20 years, so SQL Server is my first choice. I have experience and comfort, and the ability to get up to speed quickly. Oracle has been too expensive, though I think it has performed similar to SQL Server in the applications …
I've used many DBMS during my career including Oracle, DB2, SQLite and FoxPro. Since I'm more a technical guy, I personally prefer MS SQL Server more than others for its ease of use and development tools and features.
Microsoft SQL Server is a comprehensive solution as transactional database, data warehouse, analytics, reporting, and ETL. It also integrates with the cloud well (Azure). The ease of use and setup makes this better than Oracle Database because the query syntax is also different …
UI of the Microsoft SQL Server makes it easy to use and learn. The better technical support and documentation give it an extra edge over other databases. The Microsoft ecosystem provides additional advantages, as we can seamlessly use other Microsoft products, such as Power …
Microsoft SQL Server is one of the fastest RDBMS systems available in the market. Pricing is a bit on the higher side but all the features it provides pretty much justifies it. It can be integrated with a large number of frameworks thus enabling to work on multiple frameworks …
I think both tools are really powerful and close to each other but since I moved to Europe I realized that most of the companies have been using SQL Server which in my opinion means something. The support from Microsoft I also consider a bit better and you can also find more …
Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle are both extremely powerful and scalable enterprise relational database platforms. Microsoft SQL sets itself apart with its ease of use and licensing and support model. Microsoft is good company to work with and they provide clear and …
The free version is very powerfull and easy to install and use for small companies. Going to Professional and Standard, gives you all the support and the flexibility needed. It is known within the Database Administrator crew, and you can get support very easily over the …
We use both Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server for our entire product line, using the best features of each of them to solve different business requirements and technical challenges. Microsoft SQL Server is simpler to install and use, but lacks some advanced features and has fewer …
I was not too impressed with Oracle. Following the manual prohibited installation. They did provide a phone number and explained the manual was wrong and provided me with the correct information with which I was able to install the product. This was awhile back and I do not …
Oracle DB and SQL Server are very much alike. They provide the same quality of service and applications. The difference is only the price and support from them. Development codes and almost similar and can be used either way, which is very favorable for users. They can adopt to …
For a single vendor solution, SQL Server is the best choice in my opinion. Most of the other solutions do not offer the full range of products in a single package. Also, for a largely Microsoft shop, there are additional integrations which increase the value proposition. …
Microsoft SQL Server is a DBMS that can be used in any situation, from small projects to big ones, and the latest versions now can be used in several OS platforms. It is a great product with many features over its competitors. It's a mature and robust product. It's easy and …
Compared to free versions, SQL Server just blows away the free/open-source software. Things just run faster, and better, and at less overhead. This is truer and truer with the later versions. Microsoft just invests so much into research and development into their product. And …
Microsoft SQL Server stacks up pretty well - it is well established and has a large userbase. The main reason we selected Microsoft SQL Server over any other RDMS was because of its well established place in the market for such tools and large number of users (easy to hire …
I have primarily used it as the basis for a SIS - but I have migrated more than a few systems from there database systems to DB2 (Filemaker, MySQL, etc.). DB2 does have a better structural approach, as opposed to Filemaker, which allows for more data consistency, but this can also lead to an inflexibility that can sometimes be counterintuitive when attempting to compensate for the flexibility of the work environment as Schools tend to have an all in one approach.
We migrated from NoSQL to an Oracle database. One of the reasons was robust backup and recovery options available in the Oracle database, which provide zero data loss. A transactional database like Oracle is a better fit for our use case than NoSQL. On a large scale, deployment was evaluated as a cheaper option than the NoSQL engine. This conclusion came even after considering Oracle license is expensive.
Microsoft SQL is ubiquitous, while MySQL runs under the hood all over the place. Microsoft SQL is the platform taught in colleges and certification courses and is the one most likely to be used by businesses because it is backed by Microsoft. Its interface is friendly (well, as pleasant as SQL can be) and has been used by so many for so long that resources are freely available if you encounter any issues.
Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise edition has a high cost but is the only edition which supports SQL Always On Availability Groups. It would be nice to include this feature in the Standard version.
Licensing of Microsoft SQL Server is a quite complex matter, it would be good to simplify licensing in the future. For example, per core vs per user CAL licensing, as well as complex licensing scenarios in the Cloud and on Edge locations.
It would be good to include native tools for converting Oracle, DB2, Postgresql and MySQL/MariaDB databases (schema and data) for import into Microsoft SQL Server.
The DB2 database is a solid option for our school. We have been on this journey now for 3-4 years so we are still adapting to what it can do. We will renew our use of DB2 because we don’t see. Major need to change. Also, changing a main database in a school environment is a major project, so we’ll avoid that if possible.
There is a lot of sunk cost in a product like Oracle 12c. It is doing a great job, it would not provide us much benefit to switch to another product even if it did the same thing due to the work involved in making such a switch. It would not be cost effective.
We understand that the Microsoft SQL Server will continue to advance, offering the same robust and reliable platform while adding new features that enable us, as a software center, to create a superior product. That provides excellent performance while reducing the hardware requirements and the total cost of ownership of our solution.
You have to be well versed in using the technology, not only from a GUI interface but from a command line interface to successfully use this software to its fullest.
Many of the powerful options can be auto-configured but there are still many things to take into account at the moment of installing and configuring an Oracle Database, compared with SQL Server or other databases. At the same time, that extra complexity allows for detailed configuration and guarantees performance, scalability, availability and security.
SQL Server mostly 'just works' or generates error messages to help you sort out the trouble. You can usually count on the product to get the job done and keep an eye on your potential mistakes. Interaction with other Microsoft products makes operating as a Windows user pretty straight forward. Digging through the multitude of dialogs and wizards can be a pain, but the answer is usually there somewhere.
I have never had DB2 go down unexpectedly. It just works solidly every day. When I look at the logs, sometimes DB2 has figured out there was a need to build an index. Instead of waiting for me to do it, the database automatically created the index for me. At my current company, we have had zero issues for the past 8 years. We have upgrade the server 3 times and upgraded the OS each time and the only thing we saw was that DB2 got better and faster. It is simply amazing.
The performances are exceptional if you take care to maintain the database. It is a very powerful tool and at the same time very easy to use. In our installation, we expect a DB machine on the mainframe with access to the database through ODBC connectors directly from branch servers, with fabulous end users experience.
Easily the best product support team. :) Whenever we have questions, they have answered those in a timely manner and we like how they go above and beyond to help.
1. I have very good experience with Oracle Database support team. Oracle support team has pool of talented Oracle Analyst resources in different regions. To name a few regions - EMEA, Asia, USA(EST, MST, PST), Australia. Their support staffs are very supportive, well trained, and customer focused. Whenever I open Oracle Sev1 SR(service request), I always get prompt update on my case timely. 2. Oracle has zoom call and chat session option linked to Oracle SR. Whenever you are in Oracle portal - you can chat with the Oracle Analyst who is working on your case. You can request for Oracle zoom call thru which you can share the your problem server screen in no time. This is very nice as it saves lot of time and energy in case you have to follow up with oracle support for your case. 3.Oracle has excellent knowledge base in which all the customer databases critical problems and their solutions are well documented. It is very easy to follow without consulting to support team at first.
We managed to handle most of our problems by looking into Microsoft's official documentation that has everything explained and almost every function has an example that illustrates in detail how a particular functionality works. Just like PowerShell has the ability to show you an example of how some cmdlet works, that is the case also here, and in my opinion, it is a very good practice and I like it.
Overall the implementation went very well and after that everything came out as expected - in terms of performance and scalability. People should always install and upgrade a stable version for production with the latest patch set updates, test properly as much as possible, and should have a backup plan if anything unexpected happens
Other than SQL taking quite a bit of time to actually install there are no problems with installation. Even on hardware that has good performance SQL can still take close to an hour to install a typical server with management and reporting services.
DB2 was more scalable and easily configurable than other products we evaluated and short listed in terms of functionality and pricing. IBM also had a good demo on premise and provided us a sandbox experience to test out and play with the product and DB2 at that time came out better than other similar products.
Because of a rich user base and support for any critical issue, this is one of the best options to choose. In case the project has a TCO issue, it can compromise and choose Postgres as the best alternative. SQL server is also good and easy to code and maintain but performance is not as good as the Oracle
[Microsoft] SQL Server has a much better community and professional support and is overall just a more reliable system with Microsoft behind it. I've used MySQL in the past and SQL Server has just become more comfortable for me and is my go to RDBMS.
By using DB2 only to support my IzPCA activities, my knowledge here is somewhat limited.
Anyway, from what I was able to understand, DB2 is extremely scallable.
Maybe the information below could serve as an example of scalability.
Customer have an huge mainframe environment, 13x z15 CECs, around 80 LPARs, and maybe more than 50 Sysplexes (I am not totally sure about this last figure...)
Today we have 7 IzPCA databases, each one in a distinct Syplex.
Plans are underway to have, at the end, an small LPAR, with only one DB2 sub-system, and with only one database, then transmit the data from a lot of other LPARs, and then process all the data in this only one database.
The IzPCA collect process (read the data received, manipulate it, and insert rows in the tables) today is a huge process, demanding many elapsed hours, and lots of CPU.
Almost 100% of the tables are PBR type, insert jobs run in parallel, but in 4 of the 7 database, it is a really a huge and long process.
Combining the INSERTs loads from the 7 databases in only one will be impossible.......,,,,
But, IzPCA recently introduced a new feature, called "Continuous Collector".
By using that feature, small amounts of data will be transmited to the central LPAR at every 5 minutes (or even less), processed immediately,in a short period of time, and withsmall use of CPU, instead of one or two transmissions by day, of very large amounts of data and the corresponding collect jobs occurring only once or twice a day, with long elapsed times, and huge comsumption of CPU
I suspect the total CPU seconds consumed will be more or less the same in both cases, but in the new method it will occur insmall bursts many times a day!!
Increased accuracy - We went from multiple users having different versions of an Excel spreadsheet to a single source of truth for our reporting.
Increased Efficiency - We can now generate reports at any time from a single source rather than multiple users spending their time collating data and generating reports.
Improved Security - Enterprise level security on a dedicated server rather than financial files on multiple laptop hard drives.