Sneak Peek at IBM 'Viper' DB2 Release

Rob let us know that Computer Business Review magazine is reporting that IBM is about to add more fuel to the database fire. The company has offered up a sneak peek at their upcoming "Viper" release of their DB2 database. From the article: "DB2 Viper will be distinct from current DB2 database implementations in that it will be able to store XML formatted data inside the database natively--XML support will not be bolted onto the side. Viper will also support relational data stores, of course, and access to those database tables using the SQL programming language."

Comments

"the SQL programming language"

[jeroenb]

the SQL programming language
It's a query language. Ffs, the name even says so.

Although, on second thought, the name also says it's structured.

Re:"the SQL programming language"

[n0dalus]

It's a query language.

Yeah. The SQL query language.

Re:"the SQL programming language"

[Ed Avis]

For those wondering about the difference: a good rule of thumb is that a programming language has recursion, or at least loops. SQL is less powerful than a full programming langauge because there are many things you can test in a program that you can't write an SQL query for. For example, if you have a table of (person, parent) relationships, you can't write a query to list all ancestors of a given person in form (person, ancestor). But you could easily do that given the same data and a general purpose programming language.

(Actually I think the very latest SQL standard may have some support for recursion to handle queries like this one. I don't know if it is Turing-complete though; I suspect not.)

Does this mean SQL is bad? No. Partly because it is less powerful than a full programming language, the database can often work out roughly what a given query will need to access and so make an efficient query plan for it. If what you want is expressible as SQL, it's very often a lot faster than coding the same thing in a general-purpose language, and easier to write and understand.

Re:"the SQL programming language"

[Zemplar]

How about GNSQL language?

GNSQL's Not a Structured Query Language language.

Sneak PEEK

[Sexy Bern]

Not "peak". Sheesh!

Re:Sneak PEEK

[peetola]

I had a sneak peak once in high school. Very embarrasing.

Re:Oracle

[bLanark]

Oracle's had this for years. Since v 8, I think? (corrections welcome)

Glad to oblige ;-)

Oracle basically chucks it's XML into a LOB, and you can search the lob for strings, etc.
What IBM has actually breaks down the XML, creating a tree structure behind the scenes. There may be no out-and-out benefits at the moment, but the solution is a much better implementation than Oracle. The applications will come.

Visit here and have a look at the paper "An Overview of Native XML Support in DB2". Also maybe see "Learn how IBMs new XML technology differs from other XML storage", which is a link to a Register article.

Technology Pot Pie

[borkus]

Back when IBM bought Lotus, Notes was a very unique platform for document databases. I wonder if they've taken the old Notes document database concept and exapanded it to XML. IBM owns so much esoteric intellectual property; you would hope they could find some interesting overlaps.

As IBM indicates in their press release, they're making sure it integrates with PHP as well.

BTW, the register has some good coverage on the new XML integration.

I am the viper...

[pulse2600]

I am the vinder viper!!!! I vill be there in three months!!! I come to vipe your vindows!!!

Re:Oracle

[bj_rmz]

The strange thing about this development is that the navigation model used by XML is essentially
the old "network" model used by among other CODASYL in the early seventies. This model
became unfashionable when the relational model gained popularity, but seems to be quite fashionable
when it is wrapped in XML syntax :-)

SQL support!? Are you sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Viper will also support relational data stores, of course, and access to those database tables using the SQL programming language.

Thank you Captain Obvious! Until I read the headline on slashdot, I was concerned the new DB2 might not support SQL queries. Now I can sleep tonight.

On a radical tangent, I was thinking of buying a new car. Has anyone heard if the new cars from GM have wheels that turn? I'm not sure because it doesn't say on the website anywhere. I really hope the new cars have wheels that turn. If the wheels didn't turn... that'd be like a database without SQL... or something.

Re:It still sucks

[kpharmer]

> It still sucks for real time applications. DB2 is a good warehouse DB, good for batch processes and such.

The differences between oracle & db2 for transactional apps are mostly:
- db2 is about 1/3rd the cost of oracle
- db2 is faster
- db2 includes some warehousing features (range-partitioning via MDC) for free which are often also useful in these applications
- db2 is simpler to administer
- oracle has a locking interface that's easier to use (MVC instead of row-locks)
- db2 likes to use static sql that requires binds (pita, but optional)

> I must admit those IBM guys know how to butter the sales to the management with all those golf subscriptions,
> hockey tickets what have you.

Hmmm, i've worked with sales staff from quite a few different companies. But I've never worked with people as nasty as at oracle. They go *way* beyond mere buttering up of management all the way to stabbing the technical staff in the back when the want their professional services team to get their work, or when the oracle product fails to deliver the labor savings that sales promised. Oh, and then there's the famous oracle trick of leaving vital pieces of the product out of the discounted original deal, and slaying the customer when they discover that these are required...