|Date: ||Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:49:02 +0100|
|Reply-To: ||Tristan Jamelot <keybdftj@YAHOO.FR>|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||Tristan Jamelot <keybdftj@YAHOO.FR>|
|Subject: ||RE : Re: Teradata Vs. SAS|
|Content-Type: ||text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1|
In the question of "Teradata vs SAS" (as in evey comparison), the main problem is what kind of users are aimed to lauch what kind of treatments...
Teradata is a DBMS, that you can compare to SPDS, but it cannot replace every SAS products!
As Stéphane wrote, SQL PASS THRU explicit can run very well to extract data from Teradata to SAS... if you know how to write your request in order to run every "AMPs" of the Teardata machine.
If your migration to Teradata implies a hundred of SAS users, and each of them run many complex SAS program, with STAT, GRAPH, IML, procedures for example, I'm not sure you could easyli migrate their program to respect the Teradata constraints.
If you just tell them to replace their LIBNAME, the consequences may be dramatic: The users will ask you to come back to the old system, the database managers will ask you who are those SAS users, who put down the server by their requests...
So who is aimed to access the DBMS: only SAS users? Then why don't you try SPDE or SPDS?
If other kind of users may access the DBMS, the use of Teradata can be in question, but don't minimize the SAS users migration's cost...
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses.