is ther something free(evaluation,beta..) spatial DBMS?

hi
i know oracle-spatial and db2(spatial)
but i want to know
"is ther something free(evaluation,beta..) spatial DBMS?"
* spatial DBMS : can handle geometry data type (point,line,polygon...)
and spatial function (contain,cross,touch..)
thanks
JinOn Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:49:45 +0900, "ice" <yjwon@.geomania.com> wrote:
>hi
>i know oracle-spatial and db2(spatial)
>but i want to know
>"is ther something free(evaluation,beta..) spatial DBMS?"
>* spatial DBMS : can handle geometry data type (point,line,polygon...)
> and spatial function (contain,cross,touch..)
>thanks
>Jin
>
>
>
Try PostGIS
Paul|||yes, try postGIS (www.refractions.net), which can be used with postgresql.
These are both open source.
best of luck
--
____________
remove the 'obvious' from my address
to reply.
"Paul Cooper" <paul.cooper@.Nobasspam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bujmrvgvibf0jvhui3o51n6ep6dru87eep@.4ax.com...
: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:49:45 +0900, "ice" <yjwon@.geomania.com> wrote:
:
: >hi
: >
: >i know oracle-spatial and db2(spatial)
: >
: >but i want to know
: >
: >"is ther something free(evaluation,beta..) spatial DBMS?"
: >
: >* spatial DBMS : can handle geometry data type (point,line,polygon...)
: > and spatial function (contain,cross,touch..)
: >
: >thanks
: >
: >Jin
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
: Try PostGIS
:
: Paul|||There's some spatial capability that is relatively new in MySQL. I'm not
sure if all this is implemented yet, see
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Spatial_extensions_in_MySQL.html
I'd be interested in comments from people who have worked with this.
-Ken
ice wrote:
> hi
>
...
> "is ther something free(evaluation,beta..) spatial DBMS?"
>
...

Is Sql-Server 2005 Object Oriented DBMS

Greetings,
I would like to konw if Sqlserver 2005 supports Geographic Information
System (GIS) data, i.e., supports spatial data, like Oracle?
MTIA,
Grawshagrawsha2000@.yahoo.com wrote:
> Greetings,
> I would like to konw if Sqlserver 2005 supports Geographic Information
> System (GIS) data, i.e., supports spatial data, like Oracle?
>
> MTIA,
> Grawsha
SQL Server doesn't have specific features designed for GIS but it does
support user-defined datatypes and CLR (.NET) code in the database. You
can build "complex" types (points and vectors maybe) from .NET classes.
That may cover some of the features you have in mind.
As for OODBMS, it would help if you could be more specific. "OODBMS" is
commonly used as a marketing category or an imprecise term for any of
various different features and techniques. If you are looking for
encapsulation, inheritence and subclassing then you can achieve that
through .NET code either inside or outside the database server. If you
need an object store then you can also serialize .NET objects to a SQL
Server database.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||>> I would like to konw if Sqlserver 2005 supports Geographic Information
Searching MSDN bought up the following, not sure if helps:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...lValFuncSQL.asp
Anith

Is SQL Server 2000 a great datawarehousing DBMS ?

A lot of people in the organisation think that its not especially when it
comes to large datawarehouse systems. What does one do to argue the same ?
They claim Oracle or DB2 are much better.
Check this comparison:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat.../hyperion.asp.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23W$giQMPFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> A lot of people in the organisation think that its not especially when it
> comes to large datawarehouse systems. What does one do to argue the same ?
> They claim Oracle or DB2 are much better.
>
|||From a purely RDBMS perspective Oracle and DB2 have more features that can
come in handy in a DW particuliarly when dealing with very large tables
(100+ million rows). However, from the perspectives of cost, total software
offering, or client accessibility my opinon is that MSSQL 2000 is a good
platform for a DW. Like most decisions in IT choosing one vendor over
another is a matter of matching the needs of the business with the
appropriate vendor offering.
Ray
PS. Since this is a microsoft group I need to also point you toward the new
features in the up coming SQL 2005. True partitioning, enhanced 64 bit
support, and new indexing capabilities will help boost MSSQL's footing as a
great DBMS for data warehousing.
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23W$giQMPFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>A lot of people in the organisation think that its not especially when it
> comes to large datawarehouse systems. What does one do to argue the same ?
> They claim Oracle or DB2 are much better.
>
>

Is SQL Server 2000 a great datawarehousing DBMS ?

A lot of people in the organisation think that its not especially when it
comes to large datawarehouse systems. What does one do to argue the same ?
They claim Oracle or DB2 are much better.Check this comparison:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...e/hyperion.asp.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23W$giQMPFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> A lot of people in the organisation think that its not especially when it
> comes to large datawarehouse systems. What does one do to argue the same ?
> They claim Oracle or DB2 are much better.
>|||From a purely RDBMS perspective Oracle and DB2 have more features that can
come in handy in a DW particuliarly when dealing with very large tables
(100+ million rows). However, from the perspectives of cost, total software
offering, or client accessibility my opinon is that MSSQL 2000 is a good
platform for a DW. Like most decisions in IT choosing one vendor over
another is a matter of matching the needs of the business with the
appropriate vendor offering.
Ray
PS. Since this is a microsoft group I need to also point you toward the new
features in the up coming SQL 2005. True partitioning, enhanced 64 bit
support, and new indexing capabilities will help boost MSSQL's footing as a
great DBMS for data warehousing.
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23W$giQMPFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>A lot of people in the organisation think that its not especially when it
> comes to large datawarehouse systems. What does one do to argue the same ?
> They claim Oracle or DB2 are much better.
>
>