Ah.
My most humble apologies.
"Bloody Oracle SUX!!!"
Better? ;D
- Chris
ChrisRLong
@ChrisRLong
Best posts made by ChrisRLong
-
RE: Why the I-Hate-Oracle Club?
-
RE: Windows Developers still don't get it!
I had to join just to refute this nonsense.
First of all, I have been an Oracle programmer for over 8 years. Before that I was a SQLServer DBA/programmer for ~5 years.
SQLServer is obviously not a desktop toy. It has been eating away at Oracle for years now. It is cheaper, easier and in some cases faster. Just check out the TCP benchmark results http://www.tpc.org/information/results.asp . In general, I agree that Oracle can do many things that SQLServer cannot (ROWNUM, Dynamic SQL permissions, etc.), but conversely there are things that SQLServer does better than Oracle or that Oracle can't do(Case-insensitive database, Temp Tables).
SQLServer beats the pants off Oracle for ease of use. Oracle has always sucked in this arena. They can't write a user-interface to save their life, their documentation is terrible, and one has to be a masochist to try to administer the damn thing. (Although they are getting better at that). They have used their power for years as an excuse for their complexity. Their army of consultants and overpaid DBAs didn't complain because it kept them very gainfully employed. SQLServer has shown the business world that one doesn't need a fleet of consultants and several DBAs just to run a single server. SQLServer's stated goal is one DBA per 100 servers. Oracle has finally realized that it's old excuse for complexity no longer holds. That is why they have been playing catchup with the past few versions to try to make it easier to use - they just have a long way to go.
Excusing Oracle's poor tools by pointing to something worse is not even worth responding to.
And using the fact that you are overpaid to justify your product is idiotic to say the least. Now don't get me wrong - I make a very pretty penny because of Oracle and don't plan to drop my rates out of the goodness of my heart or anything. But to use it as justification is pretty pathetic. Unix as an operating system is terrible. It may be more stable, but again, Windows is catching up damn quickly and I don't see that sad command-line OS family of *nix getting any easier to use. And using the fact that the hardware is over-priced is equally stupid. So let me see if I got this right. The hardware is over-priced, the OS is over-priced and overly-complicated and the database is overly-complicated meaning the programmers and DBAs have to be over-priced. And you are arguing for Oracle? Can I ask a favor - please don't try to help.
Now, again - don't get me wrong - I'm all for Oracle. It's my livelihood, after all. But I support it because it is more powerful than SQLServer in many respects. PL/SQL blows the pants off T-SQL as a start, and the locking and latching mechanisms in Oracle have always been superior to SQLServer. But I also fully recognize that SQLServer severely beats Oracle in terms of usability and maintainability. What one ends up with is, IMHO:
SQLServer, which is easier to load, run, write against and administer. It is a very forgiving database where 80% of the work is done for you. This is extremely well tailored for the smaller and simpler databases, as it starts to get more complex and eventually tops out against much larger and much more complex problems - but it's getting better with every release.
Oracle, which can more easily handle the much larger and much more complex problems assuming you have the staff that is up to the complexities of the product. It is more difficult to load, run, write against and administer, but it's getting better with every release.
They are like Democrats and Republicans who both started as extremists but are now both very close to the center.
- Chris
Latest posts made by ChrisRLong
-
RE: Why the I-Hate-Oracle Club?
Ah.
My most humble apologies.
"Bloody Oracle SUX!!!"
Better? ;D
- Chris -
RE: Why the I-Hate-Oracle Club?
@Goff said:
1. Sequences
While the IDENTITY column implementation is cleaner, sequences are more powerful and more flexible.
@Goff said:2. Cursors
They suck in SQLServer as well
@Goff said:3. PL/SQL
Sorry - PL/SQL is tons better than T-SQL
@Goff said:4. SQL+
Absolutely! Positively! There is no possible excuse for that abomination.
@Goff said:5. Online documentation that refers to specific document numbers that do not exist.
They are anti-anything MS, and so have embraced HTML as their 'open standard' for documenation. The problem is that they have so damn much of it that they are constantly breaking their links, etc.
@Goff said:6. Arrogance without end
Similar things can be said about Mein fuhrer Gates, but I definitely agree
@Goff said:7. =,=
Uh, those are SQLServer's constructs. in pre-ANSI*92 syntax, Oracle uses a (+) after the table name for outer-joins - no more intuitive than =. = in that respect.
@Goff said:8. tnsnames
Agreed - so don't use it.
Again - just trying to keep the arguments honest,
- Chris
-
RE: Like a British sports-car
@memorex said:
<font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef"> Page locking halts everyone who's trying to use that table at the same time.
</font>
Not sure what you were smoking when you wrote this one - this is a SQLServer issue - definitely not an Oracle issue. Oracle has never had page-level locking.
@memorex said:
<font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef"> TNSNAMES.ORA. On -EVERY DAMNED, STINKING, FLIPPING, CROTCHGRABBING- C/S desktop.
.. so don't use TNSNAMES.ORA.
@memorex said:
* 15 seconds to create a new connection (circa 1998) . WTF WAS IT DOING?!!
It was a bug - it happens
@memorex said:
Connections: you want more than 350 or so? TOO F'ING BAD!! (This may have been due to DBA (lack) of knowledge or tweaking or who knows?)
DBA issue on that one.
@memorex said:
You want blob's? We got blobs! We got them in blue, red, long, raw, cooked, not so long, character-based, fried, short, female, baboon, gibbon, prehensile, new-world, old-world, 3rd-world, 5th-world, bonobo, spider, lemur, ape, great ape, golden tamarin, chimp, macaque, and Canadian Fire Monkey. And they're ALL going to be a bitch to work with.
So having options is bad?
...and I remember them being a PITA to use in SQLSErver as well, although that certainly could be better by now.
@memorex said:
* "Hey Oracle- you wanna keep those index-stats up to date so that your optimizer doesn't turn a <1s query into one that never returns?" (Orcl makes an unintelligent sound here that implies you should not be pestering it) "Oh- ok, well thanks anyway, I'll just tweak every query I have to ask it to not hassle the optimizer. Then everything will work faster."
If you want stats refreshed all the time - make a 2-line call to create a job to do it - not that much of a hassle for that one.
There are certainly enough valid things to bust on Oracle for without making stuff up - let's have a fair fight, now ;)
- Chris
</font> -
RE: Even Middle School Kids know better than Oracle
Uh, yeah - kinda hard to blame that one on Oracle, especially when that's the best solution you could come up with.
- Chris -
RE: Windows Developers still don't get it!
I had to join just to refute this nonsense.
First of all, I have been an Oracle programmer for over 8 years. Before that I was a SQLServer DBA/programmer for ~5 years.
SQLServer is obviously not a desktop toy. It has been eating away at Oracle for years now. It is cheaper, easier and in some cases faster. Just check out the TCP benchmark results http://www.tpc.org/information/results.asp . In general, I agree that Oracle can do many things that SQLServer cannot (ROWNUM, Dynamic SQL permissions, etc.), but conversely there are things that SQLServer does better than Oracle or that Oracle can't do(Case-insensitive database, Temp Tables).
SQLServer beats the pants off Oracle for ease of use. Oracle has always sucked in this arena. They can't write a user-interface to save their life, their documentation is terrible, and one has to be a masochist to try to administer the damn thing. (Although they are getting better at that). They have used their power for years as an excuse for their complexity. Their army of consultants and overpaid DBAs didn't complain because it kept them very gainfully employed. SQLServer has shown the business world that one doesn't need a fleet of consultants and several DBAs just to run a single server. SQLServer's stated goal is one DBA per 100 servers. Oracle has finally realized that it's old excuse for complexity no longer holds. That is why they have been playing catchup with the past few versions to try to make it easier to use - they just have a long way to go.
Excusing Oracle's poor tools by pointing to something worse is not even worth responding to.
And using the fact that you are overpaid to justify your product is idiotic to say the least. Now don't get me wrong - I make a very pretty penny because of Oracle and don't plan to drop my rates out of the goodness of my heart or anything. But to use it as justification is pretty pathetic. Unix as an operating system is terrible. It may be more stable, but again, Windows is catching up damn quickly and I don't see that sad command-line OS family of *nix getting any easier to use. And using the fact that the hardware is over-priced is equally stupid. So let me see if I got this right. The hardware is over-priced, the OS is over-priced and overly-complicated and the database is overly-complicated meaning the programmers and DBAs have to be over-priced. And you are arguing for Oracle? Can I ask a favor - please don't try to help.
Now, again - don't get me wrong - I'm all for Oracle. It's my livelihood, after all. But I support it because it is more powerful than SQLServer in many respects. PL/SQL blows the pants off T-SQL as a start, and the locking and latching mechanisms in Oracle have always been superior to SQLServer. But I also fully recognize that SQLServer severely beats Oracle in terms of usability and maintainability. What one ends up with is, IMHO:
SQLServer, which is easier to load, run, write against and administer. It is a very forgiving database where 80% of the work is done for you. This is extremely well tailored for the smaller and simpler databases, as it starts to get more complex and eventually tops out against much larger and much more complex problems - but it's getting better with every release.
Oracle, which can more easily handle the much larger and much more complex problems assuming you have the staff that is up to the complexities of the product. It is more difficult to load, run, write against and administer, but it's getting better with every release.
They are like Democrats and Republicans who both started as extremists but are now both very close to the center.
- Chris