It works exactly as I expect it :)
seraphim
@seraphim
Best posts made by seraphim
Latest posts made by seraphim
-
RE: Is it really Horricle?
@lpope187 said:
There are still some minor grievances / quirks like the row number thing - but what software doesn't have quirks.
Row number thing?
-
RE: An empty string is not equal to an empty string? WTF?
1) There is no 'secretly' about it. Oracle documentation states it plainly : An empty string evaluates to null.
2) Why should it convert to IS? You should be using IS in the first place.
-
RE: An empty string is not equal to an empty string? WTF?
It does convert both strings to null.
It's a basic fundamental principle that NULL is neither equal to NULL, nor it is not equal to NULL.
Null is an unknown. You can't compare an unknown with another unknown. This is like saying "I'm thinking of a number, you're thinking of a number. Neither of us know what both those numbers are. Now ... tell me if they're the same, or different."
-
RE: WTF or good optimizer?
That looks suspiciously like a correlated subquery to me.
I hate those things.
-
RE: Oracle vs. Postgres, the choice is obvious
@lofwyr said:
@seraphim said:
"Unlimited" text field per table? Don't follow you. The CLOB datatype allows text of up to 4 gigabytes per column, and you can certainly have more than one CLOB in a table. Could you give an example of the problem you're hitting?
On 10g2 the size of a CLOB can range between 8 and 128TB
http://download-uk.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/appdev.102/b14261/datatypes.htm#i43142
To the OP: It would have been nice if you'd read up some things in the user documentation before mouthing off, such as the text column argument.
l.
D'OH! I left off the important bit : 4 gigabytes (x DB_BLOCK_SIZE)
Ok, so technically it's (4gb-1) x db_block_size ...
Man, how embarrassing :(
Of relevance to the OP : maximum number of clobs per table is essentially 1000, for a maximum of 128,000 terabytes or 125 petabytes (if we assume 1 petabyte = 1024 tb) worth of text in CLOBs. It's not still unlimited, but it's pretty good ...
-
RE: Oracle vs. Postgres, the choice is obvious
@roto said:
Why would I download one of those other tools, when sqlplus is included
with the install. My terminal is default gnome-terminal settings, I
don't know what your idea of "correct" is, please enlighten me. My "incorrect" settings work just fine with mysql and psql.Funny how you didn't have a response to the lack of auto incrementing numeric fields, or more than one unlimited text field per table. Those are the biggest WTFs.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Oracle is a pain in the ass, not impossible. I don't have to change how I do things with Postgres or MySQL.
I don't know anything about Java, so can't remark upon that.
Auto incrementing numeric fields? Sequence. You'll need to combine with a trigger, true, for an "auto incrementing" field, but since sequences aren't limited in use to a single table they're phenomenally useful.
"Unlimited" text field per table? Don't follow you. The CLOB datatype allows text of up to 4 gigabytes per column, and you can certainly have more than one CLOB in a table. Could you give an example of the problem you're hitting?
As to why you'd want to use SQL Developer when you've got sqlplus ... that's not comparing like with like. SQLPlus is a CLI-based client, SQL Developer is a full GUI client aimed primarily at developers rather than end users, but can still be used as a general query tool.
-
RE: Even Oracle hates Oracle
@Pap said:
http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/01/will_oracle_lau.html
"Here are just two things of note: Oracle has suggested it will offer support for the MySQL code, undercutting the company, and Oracle is already distributing the open source database management system.
'They have hinted to us that they will,' said Mickos, indicating that the database giant is planning to repeat its October 2006 Unbreakable Linux plan, which saw it undercut Red Hat with enterprise Linux support."
It's a real shame that they moved into "Unbreakable Linux" and (now, apparently) "Unbreakable MySQL" before getting "Unbreakable Oracle" right :)
-
RE: How Oracle ruined my holidays
Nothing, eh? Pity.
Well, absent any evidence of an actual bug I think this can be summed up neatly:
Incompetently configured Oracle instance and/or badly designed schema != Oracle is a "piece of shit database system"
-
RE: How Oracle ruined my holidays
@seraphim said:
Long time lurker, first time poster 'cos this made me laugh. A lot.
When you say "turns out it was an Oracle problem after all!" ... what WAS the problem? What was the resolution? What bug(s) were involved? Is it reproducible?
What hardware is the instance running on?
What version of Oracle?
What does the spfile (or init file) look like?
What comes out in the alert log?
Any thing significant in the trace files (if any)?
FWIW, I've got databases with uptimes of excess of six months, that handle hundreds of simultaneous connections, and tens of thousands of record writes in very short period of times*, so I'd be VERY interested in knowing what - exactly - is crippling your system so badly.
* As have LOTS of dbas out there. This is by no means an unusual load for Oracle, or - usually - even particularly challenging.
So how about it, oracle-hater? Any chance of seeing this information?