|
Home > Archive > ASE Database forum > October 2005 > Which is which?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Lee Dong Gun 2005-09-26, 7:23 am |
| When to choose between Adaptive Server Enterprise and
Adaptive Server Anywhere?
In my understanding they are both "enterprise" RDBMS right?
Now it all depends on the need so which is which?
Lee
| |
| Rob Verschoor 2005-09-26, 7:23 am |
| <Lee Dong Gun> wrote in message news:4337c550.73ae.1681692777@sybase.com...
> When to choose between Adaptive Server Enterprise and
> Adaptive Server Anywhere?
>
> In my understanding they are both "enterprise" RDBMS right?
>
> Now it all depends on the need so which is which?
>
>
> Lee
ASE is the enterprise RDBMS, ASA is for smaller applications.
Check out www.sypron.nl/whatis_ase.html for some more background on both.
HTH,
Rob
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Verschoor
Certified Sybase Professional DBA for ASE 12.5/12.0/11.5/11.0
and Replication Server 12.5 / TeamSybase
Author of Sybase books (order online at www.sypron.nl/shop):
"Tips, Tricks & Recipes for Sybase ASE"
"The Complete Sybase Replication Server Quick Reference Guide"
"The Complete Sybase ASE Quick Reference Guide"
mailto:rob@YOUR.SPAM.sypron.nl.NOT.FOR.ME
http://www.sypron.nl
Sypron B.V., P.O.Box 10695, 2501HR Den Haag, The Netherlands
-------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Lee Dong Gun 2005-09-26, 7:23 am |
| But why are they marketing ASA now as an enterprise
database?
> <Lee Dong Gun> wrote in message
> Server Anywhere? >
> right? >
>
> ASE is the enterprise RDBMS, ASA is for smaller
> applications. Check out www.sypron.nl/whatis_ase.html for
> some more background on both.
>
> HTH,
>
> Rob
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> --- Rob Verschoor
>
> Certified Sybase Professional DBA for ASE
> 12.5/12.0/11.5/11.0 and Replication Server 12.5 /
> TeamSybase
>
> Author of Sybase books (order online at
> www.sypron.nl/shop): "Tips, Tricks & Recipes for Sybase
> ASE" "The Complete Sybase Replication Server Quick
> Reference Guide" "The Complete Sybase ASE Quick Reference
> Guide"
>
> mailto:rob@YOUR.SPAM.sypron.nl.NOT.FOR.ME
> http://www.sypron.nl
> Sypron B.V., P.O.Box 10695, 2501HR Den Haag, The
> Netherlands
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
>
| |
| Carl Kayser 2005-09-26, 7:23 am |
| And how do you quantify "smaller applications"? (On the other hand, I do
think that the ASA SQL language is "richer" than ASE.)
"Rob Verschoor" <rob@DO.NOT.SPAM.sypron.nl.REMOVE.THIS.DECOY> wrote in
message news:4337c8a8$1@foru
ms-1-dub...
> <Lee Dong Gun> wrote in message
> news:4337c550.73ae.1681692777@sybase.com...
>
> ASE is the enterprise RDBMS, ASA is for smaller applications.
> Check out www.sypron.nl/whatis_ase.html for some more background on both.
>
> HTH,
>
> Rob
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Rob Verschoor
>
> Certified Sybase Professional DBA for ASE 12.5/12.0/11.5/11.0
> and Replication Server 12.5 / TeamSybase
>
> Author of Sybase books (order online at www.sypron.nl/shop):
> "Tips, Tricks & Recipes for Sybase ASE"
> "The Complete Sybase Replication Server Quick Reference Guide"
> "The Complete Sybase ASE Quick Reference Guide"
>
> mailto:rob@YOUR.SPAM.sypron.nl.NOT.FOR.ME
> http://www.sypron.nl
> Sypron B.V., P.O.Box 10695, 2501HR Den Haag, The Netherlands
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
| |
| Lee Dong Gun 2005-09-26, 7:23 am |
| Yeah, what's big for ASA and what's small for ASE?
> And how do you quantify "smaller applications"? (On the
> other hand, I do think that the ASA SQL language is
> "richer" than ASE.)
>
> "Rob Verschoor"
> <rob@DO.NOT.SPAM.sypron.nl.REMOVE.THIS.DECOY> wrote in
> news:4337c550.73ae.1681692777@sybase.com... >> When to
> choose between Adaptive Server Enterprise and >> Adaptive
> Server Anywhere? >>
> right? >>
> for some more background on both. >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> TeamSybase >
> Reference Guide" >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> --- >
>
>
| |
| Rob Verschoor 2005-09-26, 7:23 am |
| 'Big' and 'small' are relative concepts of course... There's definitely a
category of applications that could be served by both.
Criteria are not so much database size, but rather #transactions,
scalability requirements, and capability for future growth. I.e. if you
expect to do a lot of OLTP, and/or combined with replication, you'll most
likely need ASE rather than ASA.
HTH,
Rob V.
<Lee Dong Gun> wrote in message news:4337d517.7462.1681692777@sybase.com...[color=darkred]
> Yeah, what's big for ASA and what's small for ASE?
>
| |
| Lee Dong Gun 2005-09-26, 9:23 am |
| Can you cite an example? Like what kind of mission critical
systems do you know that suppose to use ASE and not ASA.
Can a school system combined with replication be one of
those examples? In your opinion would it be cost-effective
using ASE rather than ASA?
Thanks,
Lee Dong Gun
> 'Big' and 'small' are relative concepts of course...
> There's definitely a category of applications that could
> be served by both. Criteria are not so much database size,
> but rather #transactions, scalability requirements, and
> capability for future growth. I.e. if you expect to do a
> lot of OLTP, and/or combined with replication, you'll most
> likely need ASE rather than ASA.
>
> HTH,
>
> Rob V.
>
> <Lee Dong Gun> wrote in message
> big for ASA and what's small for ASE? >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
| |
| Rob Verschoor 2005-09-26, 9:23 am |
| It all depends... if the school has 50 students than ASA might be good
enough but I'd say once replication comes in you may need to look at ASE. It
depends also on the sort of workload: if little or no updates take place,
there will be little to replicate.
The sort of mission-critical systems running ASE are found in many places.
Check out sybase.com for some examples and success stories (about ASA too,
BTW).
HTH,
Rob V.
<Lee Dong Gun> wrote in message news:4337ed84.3cdf.1681692777@sybase.com...[color=darkred]
> Can you cite an example? Like what kind of mission critical
> systems do you know that suppose to use ASE and not ASA.
>
> Can a school system combined with replication be one of
> those examples? In your opinion would it be cost-effective
> using ASE rather than ASA?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee Dong Gun
>
>
| |
| Lee Dong Gun 2005-09-26, 11:24 am |
| Thanks Rob,
Lee Dong Gun
> It all depends... if the school has 50 students than ASA
> might be good enough but I'd say once replication comes in
> you may need to look at ASE. It depends also on the sort
> of workload: if little or no updates take place, there
> will be little to replicate. The sort of mission-critical
> systems running ASE are found in many places. Check out
> sybase.com for some examples and success stories (about
> ASA too, BTW).
>
> HTH,
>
> Rob V.
>
> <Lee Dong Gun> wrote in message
> do you know that suppose to use ASE and not ASA. >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
| |
| Jason L. Froebe [Team Sybase] 2005-09-26, 11:24 am |
| Rob Verschoor wrote:
> It all depends... if the school has 50 students than ASA might be good
> enough but I'd say once replication comes in you may need to look at ASE. It
> depends also on the sort of workload: if little or no updates take place,
> there will be little to replicate.
> The sort of mission-critical systems running ASE are found in many places.
> Check out sybase.com for some examples and success stories (about ASA too,
> BTW).
>
> HTH,
>
> Rob V.
Hi Rob,
I would say the same thing but slightly differently:
Use ASE when you need a DBMS with a concurrent access by 100 or more
users. ASE scales higher on the concurrent usage.
ASA (SQL Anywhere) is more optimized for data storage and less for
concurrent access. This is one of the reasons that ASA is the storage
backend for IQ. It also scales down to cell phones and such.
Both are equally good DBMSs but each are aimed at different usage.
--
Jason L. Froebe
"There is usually a balance between the left and the right... checks &
balances... the bane of the government but the boon of the people" -
Jason L. Froebe
WebBlog http://jfroebe.livejournal.com
TeamSybase (http://www.teamsybase.com)
ISUG member (http://www.isug.com)
Chicago Sybase Tools User Group (http://www.cpbug.com)
| |
| Carl Kayser 2005-09-26, 11:24 am |
| "This is one of the reasons that ASA is the storage backend for IQ." I
thought that it was the front-end? (Aside. I believe that they are going
to replace the ASIQ back/front-end with ASE to facilitate more direct
ASE-ASIQ data transfers.)
"Jason L. Froebe [Team Sybase]" <jfroebe@froebe.net> wrote in message
news:43381436$1@foru
ms-1-dub...
> Rob Verschoor wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> I would say the same thing but slightly differently:
>
> Use ASE when you need a DBMS with a concurrent access by 100 or more
> users. ASE scales higher on the concurrent usage.
>
> ASA (SQL Anywhere) is more optimized for data storage and less for
> concurrent access. This is one of the reasons that ASA is the storage
> backend for IQ. It also scales down to cell phones and such.
>
> Both are equally good DBMSs but each are aimed at different usage.
> --
> Jason L. Froebe
>
> "There is usually a balance between the left and the right... checks &
> balances... the bane of the government but the boon of the people" -
> Jason L. Froebe
>
> WebBlog http://jfroebe.livejournal.com
>
> TeamSybase (http://www.teamsybase.com)
> ISUG member (http://www.isug.com)
> Chicago Sybase Tools User Group (http://www.cpbug.com)
| |
| Eugene Korolkov 2005-09-26, 1:24 pm |
| What you could say about below (from www.sybase.com by Bret Carter) ?:
Regards,
Eugene
>
> First of all, ASA is now being marketed as an enterprise database
> solution, as well as a solution for mid-level and embedded
> applications. There is no school system on the *planet* whose
> enterprise database requirements could not be handled by an ASA 9
> database running on the appropriate equipment. Millions of rows,
> thousands of busy users, hundreds of gigabytes, no problem. For some
> benchmark and market share reports, see
> http://www.risingroad.com/benchmarks.html
>
> So why pick ASA over ASE? Let me count the reasons...
>
> - ASA has a more powerful procedural SQL language. That means when
> appropriate, it is possible to push complex logic down into the
> database in an efficient manner: efficient for the developer to write,
> efficient for the engine to execute. ASA has scheduled and triggered
> events, row-level triggers, local blob variables, global temporary
> tables, persistent local temporary tables, user-defined
> connection-level variables, user-defined SQL functions... the list
> goes on and on.
>
> - ASA has a more powerful SELECT statement, including local views via
> the WITH clause, the LIST aggregate function with ORDER BY, the
> recursive union for hierarchical queries, modern OLAP query operators,
> ORDER BY clauses on derived tables... this list goes on and on as
> well.
>
> - ASA has tools that work: stored procedure and trigger debugger,
> capturing of expensive queries, the index consultant, the graphical
> plan display. Plus a low-impact remote performance monitoring and
> diagnostic tracing tool coming in the next version.
>
> - ASA has simpler administration. You won't get panic calls "The
> transaction log is full!" Installation is easier, configuration is
> easier, performance tuning is easier (and mostly unnecessary), backup
> is easier, recovery is easier, migration from one platform to another
> is easier (even to different-endian setups: install the software, copy
> the database file, start the server).
>
> - ASA has a lower price tag, not just for licencing but for all those
> DBAs you do not need to hire. Everything comes "in the box"... no need
> for third-party tool purchases, no need to buy another DBMS to do
> OLAP, or another product to do replication.
>
> - ASA has very bright future. The ASA engineers definitely "get it",
> they understand what people need from a DBMS, what the default
> settings and default behavior should be, why the ANSI standards are
> important... they do things the way they should be done. ASA has
> always had many important features before the other guy; examples
> include declarative referential integrity, row-level locking,
> scrollable cursors and the LEFT OUTER JOIN as an alternative to the
> unpredictable *= operator.
>
> Sign up for the Beta of the next version:
> http://www.ianywhere.com/promos/sqlanybeta/index.html
>
> It will have hot failover, materialized views, snapshot isolation...
> once again, the list goes on and on and on...
>
> Breck
Carl Kayser wrote:
>"This is one of the reasons that ASA is the storage backend for IQ." I
>thought that it was the front-end? (Aside. I believe that they are going
>to replace the ASIQ back/front-end with ASE to facilitate more direct
>ASE-ASIQ data transfers.)
>
>"Jason L. Froebe [Team Sybase]" <jfroebe@froebe.net> wrote in message
> news:43381436$1@foru
ms-1-dub...
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Sherlock, Kevin 2005-09-26, 8:25 pm |
| What I would say is that Breck (not Bret) is a passionate supporter of ASA (SQL
Anywhere) and really does know that product very well. ASA (SQL Anywhere) is
another high quality database management system offered by Sybase, and another
one of those "well kept secrets".
Both ASE and ASA (SQL Anywhere) have their strengths and weaknesses. What the
OP needs to do is find out which solution best fits their technical, strategic,
and budgetary requirements and go from there. Breck's points can all be argued
either way which always makes those types of "this product is better than that
product" arguments go on forever.
Should the poster decide to go with ASA (SQL Anywhere), Breck and the whole
community over at public.sybase.sqlanywhere.general is an excellent resource for
user support, as well as the Sybase technical support for ASA. And the same can
be said for the ASE side as well.
"Eugene Korolkov" <ekorolkov@davidsohn.com> wrote in message
news:43382BF6.8030903@davidsohn.com...
What you could say about below (from www.sybase.com by Bret Carter) ?:
Regards,
Eugene
>Guys, I have a question "Why would you choose ASA over ASE?"...
First of all, ASA is now being marketed as an enterprise database
solution, as well as a solution for mid-level and embedded
applications. There is no school system on the *planet* whose
enterprise database requirements could not be handled by an ASA 9
database running on the appropriate equipment. Millions of rows,
thousands of busy users, hundreds of gigabytes, no problem. For some
benchmark and market share reports, see
http://www.risingroad.com/benchmarks.html
So why pick ASA over ASE? Let me count the reasons...
- ASA has a more powerful procedural SQL language. That means when
appropriate, it is possible to push complex logic down into the
database in an efficient manner: efficient for the developer to write,
efficient for the engine to execute. ASA has scheduled and triggered
events, row-level triggers, local blob variables, global temporary
tables, persistent local temporary tables, user-defined
connection-level variables, user-defined SQL functions... the list
goes on and on.
- ASA has a more powerful SELECT statement, including local views via
the WITH clause, the LIST aggregate function with ORDER BY, the
recursive union for hierarchical queries, modern OLAP query operators,
ORDER BY clauses on derived tables... this list goes on and on as
well.
- ASA has tools that work: stored procedure and trigger debugger,
capturing of expensive queries, the index consultant, the graphical
plan display. Plus a low-impact remote performance monitoring and
diagnostic tracing tool coming in the next version.
- ASA has simpler administration. You won't get panic calls "The
transaction log is full!" Installation is easier, configuration is
easier, performance tuning is easier (and mostly unnecessary), backup
is easier, recovery is easier, migration from one platform to another
is easier (even to different-endian setups: install the software, copy
the database file, start the server).
- ASA has a lower price tag, not just for licencing but for all those
DBAs you do not need to hire. Everything comes "in the box"... no need
for third-party tool purchases, no need to buy another DBMS to do
OLAP, or another product to do replication.
- ASA has very bright future. The ASA engineers definitely "get it",
they understand what people need from a DBMS, what the default
settings and default behavior should be, why the ANSI standards are
important... they do things the way they should be done. ASA has
always had many important features before the other guy; examples
include declarative referential integrity, row-level locking,
scrollable cursors and the LEFT OUTER JOIN as an alternative to the
unpredictable *= operator.
Sign up for the Beta of the next version:
http://www.ianywhere.com/promos/sqlanybeta/index.html
It will have hot failover, materialized views, snapshot isolation...
once again, the list goes on and on and on...
Breck
Carl Kayser wrote:
"This is one of the reasons that ASA is the storage backend for IQ." I
thought that it was the front-end? (Aside. I believe that they are going
to replace the ASIQ back/front-end with ASE to facilitate more direct
ASE-ASIQ data transfers.)
"Jason L. Froebe [Team Sybase]" <jfroebe@froebe.net> wrote in message
news:43381436$1@foru
ms-1-dub...
Rob Verschoor wrote:
It all depends... if the school has 50 students than ASA might be good
enough but I'd say once replication comes in you may need to look at ASE.
It
depends also on the sort of workload: if little or no updates take place,
there will be little to replicate.
The sort of mission-critical systems running ASE are found in many
places.
Check out sybase.com for some examples and success stories (about ASA
too,
BTW).
HTH,
Rob V.
Hi Rob,
I would say the same thing but slightly differently:
Use ASE when you need a DBMS with a concurrent access by 100 or more
users. ASE scales higher on the concurrent usage.
ASA (SQL Anywhere) is more optimized for data storage and less for
concurrent access. This is one of the reasons that ASA is the storage
backend for IQ. It also scales down to cell phones and such.
Both are equally good DBMSs but each are aimed at different usage.
--
Jason L. Froebe
"There is usually a balance between the left and the right... checks &
balances... the bane of the government but the boon of the people" -
Jason L. Froebe
WebBlog http://jfroebe.livejournal.com
TeamSybase (http://www.teamsybase.com)
ISUG member (http://www.isug.com)
Chicago Sybase Tools User Group (http://www.cpbug.com)
| |
| Will Banta 2005-10-27, 8:21 am |
| So they're switching back to using ASE as the db engine for IQ?? That's
the way it was originally released, no?
Carl Kayser wrote:
> "This is one of the reasons that ASA is the storage backend for IQ." I
> thought that it was the front-end? (Aside. I believe that they are going
> to replace the ASIQ back/front-end with ASE to facilitate more direct
> ASE-ASIQ data transfers.)
>
> "Jason L. Froebe [Team Sybase]" <jfroebe@froebe.net> wrote in message
> news:43381436$1@foru
ms-1-dub...
>
>
>
>
| |
| Carl Kayser 2005-10-27, 8:21 am |
| I don't use ASIQ, but, as I remember from TechWave, that is what a Sybase
rep said as well. The original front-end for ASIQ was from ASE.
"Will Banta" < NOSPAMwbanta@deerfie
ldcapital.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:43427610$1@foru
ms-2-dub...[color=darkred]
> So they're switching back to using ASE as the db engine for IQ?? That's
> the way it was originally released, no?
>
> Carl Kayser wrote:
| |
| Sherlock, Kevin 2005-10-27, 8:21 am |
| Well, are you talking about IQ 11.x ? In that case there was an ASE server
which served as the "catalog" server in that architecture, but the IQ engine was
and always has been from what I understand borne of ASA. The "catalog" server
was scrapped in later versions so you didn't need the ASE piece.
"Carl Kayser" <kayser_c@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:434283ab$1@foru
ms-2-dub...
> I don't use ASIQ, but, as I remember from TechWave, that is what a Sybase
> rep said as well. The original front-end for ASIQ was from ASE.
>
> "Will Banta" < NOSPAMwbanta@deerfie
ldcapital.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:43427610$1@foru
ms-2-dub...
>
|
|
|
|
|