This Log Buffer Edition begins with some great blog posts from Oracle, goes through SQL Server and then ends with MySQL.
- Ruby-oci8 is a ruby interface for an Oracle Database.
- Another python graph – one wait event.
- This article compares FBL and HDL – two of the commonly used data loading tools in Fusion HCM to highlight key differences and similarities.
- Better Data Modeling: Customizing Oracle Sql Developer Data Modeler (#SQLDevModeler) to Support Custom Data Types.
- Sample code: Oracle Grid Infrastructure action script for Windows.
- Being a database administrator can be very challenging at times when you have to troubleshoot performance issues.
- Another Reason to Use NOEXPAND hints in Enterprise Edition.
- Error: Microsoft .NET framework 3.5 service pack 1 is Required.
- Removing Duplicates from Strings in SQL Server.
- .NET Core is more interesting than the name might suggest. Whereas the .NET framework provides a consistent runtime for all the applications on a machine.
- OpenSSH CVE-2016-0777: Details and Mitigation.
- MySQL Group Replication for MySQL 5.7.10.
- MySQL 5.7 auto-generated root password.
- MySQL Support People – Those Who Were There First.
- Planning the defaults for MySQL 5.8.
Join us for another Oracle Customer Reference Forum on February 4, 2016. Mr. Sudip Mazumder, Head of IT - EPC, International Business and Corporate Functions, will talk about the company's need to standardize its sales processes across the globe and its desire for better insight for upsell and cross-sell opportunities. He will explain how KEC is implementing Oracle Sales Cloud integrated to Oracle JD Edwards to get a full 360-degree view of its customers.
KEC International Limited is India's second largest manufacturer of electric power transmission towers and one of the largest Power Transmission Engineering, Procurement and Construction companies in the world.
Register now to attend the live forum on Thursday, February 4, 2016, at 2:30 PM IST and learn more about KEC International’s experience with Oracle Sales Cloud and Oracle JD Edwards.
WorkForce AtTask is a cloud based project management solution and it is capable of talking SAML.
Recently I had integrated AtTask application with Oracle Access Manager 11gR2 for SAML SSO integration where AtTask is SP and OAM is IDP.
AtTask uses its own repository for users. OAM uses AD LDAP for authentication store. Like any general SAML SSO integration, metadata has to be exported and imported into each provider.
The AtTask documentation details how to import metadata and configure mapping attributes.
In this post, I would like to detail what is different in this product for enabling SAML integration.
After enabling SAML SSO integration and importing metadata as per above documentation, we can test the SSO setup using Test the connection. During this process, the user is redirected to IDP and user submits credentials and SAML token is generated and passed onto SP (AtTask).
The test output page contains the $$NAMEID coming from IDP and typically it would be userid and this is the Federated ID. Federated ID is an attribute of AtTask user profile that is key for mapping user based on SAML assertion.
Login to AtTask as administrator. Goto user profile and update Federated ID with $$NAMEID output value. That’s it. You’re all set.
Note that regular login will not work when SAML SSO is enabled in AtTask. Hence it is recommended to update all user profiles with Federated ID value before enabling SAML SSO.
Hope this helps.
Panel drawer icon is displayed in the top right corner of the dashboard:
User can click on the icon and this shows editable form for the data rendered in the dashboard:
Dashboard is implemented with masontry layout, it makes it possible to re-arrange tiles. This proves to be useful when editing data. I can move tile with the chart and change salary value. Chart is synched and new value becomes visible. Two actions are done at once - data update and change review in the chart:
One more use case - validation. While editing salary, we can check tile with minimum and maximum salary values. This could help to understand, what salary value can be accepted. For example, if too low salary is set, validation error is returned. User can cross check this in the chart with minimum and maximum values:
Panel drawer is defined in the same group, where masonry layout block is located:
Edit form is rendered through ADF region, this means it can be reusable:
Download sample application - DashboardApp_v4.zip.
By Michael FeldsteinMore Posts (1052)
To recap what’s happened so far:
- Audrey Watters called our attention to a patent filing by Khan Academy.
- I expressed my concerns about the continuing patent problem that we have in educational technology.
- Carl Straumsheim explained the defensive use of patents in more detail and in the process motivated me to take a look at the specifics of the patent agreement that Khan Academy signed.
- I took an initial look at said agreement, known as the Innovator’s Agreement, and concluded that it was a step in the right direction but that I still had concerns.
Since then, I had a little more time to look at the actual legal language of the agreement and reflect on the larger edupatent problem. And I’ve come to the conclusion that Khan Academy did the right thing by adopting the agreement. We should feel good about what they’ve done. And given the realities that software patents exist and defensive patents are therefore a necessary evil, we should encourage other educational patent holders to do as Khan has done and adopt the same agreement.
The Innovator’s Agreement is actually quite clever. To recap the basic idea, companies that adopt the agreement give the inventors who are named on the patent application veto power over the patent’s assertion, except in cases where the company is acting in self-defense in response to legal action against it. More than just a pledge, it is a legally binding document. (Text of the agreement is here.)
The agreement travels with the patent, so if the company sells it then the new owner will still be bound by the agreement:
Assignee acknowledges and agrees that the above promises are intended to run with the Patents and are binding on any future owner, assignee or exclusive licensee who has been given the right to enforce any claims of the Patents against third parties. Assignee covenants with Inventors that any assignment or transfer of its right, title, or interest herein will be conveyed with the promises herein as an encumbrance.
The inventors do get to pass along assertion veto rights to their heirs:
[T]he license shall pass to the heirs of an inventor in the case that the inventor is deceased[…]
But if I’m reading the whole passage on those rights correctly, they can’t pass it along in a way that would damage the original intent (like selling it to a patent troll, for example), and there is a poison pill that basically says any protection from patent assertion that the inventor has a right to confer is invalid if it is granted under duress (for example, as a settlement payment in a threatened lawsuit):
Any sublicense granted by the Inventors under this section must be without threat or additional consideration; otherwise, the sublicense will be considered void ab initio. This license to the Inventors is not assignable, although the license shall pass to the heirs of an inventor in the case that the inventor is deceased, and the inventors, individually or jointly, may appoint a representative who may act on their behalf in granting sublicenses under this section. Assignee acknowledges and agrees that the promises in section 2 and 4 are intended to benefit third parties, except in the case of an assertion of claims of the Patents authorized under section 2.
There’s even a provision that says the company that holds the patent can assert in defense of third parties that are getting sued for patent infringement:
[The Company can assert the patent] against an Entity that has filed, maintained, or voluntarily participated in a patent infringement lawsuit against another in the past ten years, so long as the Entity has not instituted the patent infringement lawsuit defensively in response to a patent litigation threat against the Entity.
Overall, the Innovator’s Agreement is a pretty potent tool for deterring patent assertion. And while I would prefer that the power granted by the agreement be in the hands of a trusted third party, the protection of this agreement is still a big step forward, particularly if it is adopted widely enough that there are many parties holding such rights to different patents. The biggest thing that is missing is a strong motivation for the patent holders to assert their patents in the defense of a third party. For example, would Big LMS Company Patent Holder assert a patent in defense of Little Ed Tech Startup if the latter were being sued by Big Textbook Company that happened to also be a major business partner of Big LMS Company Patent Holder? I doubt it. In fact, I doubt that the third-party defense is likely to ever be invoked, for a variety of reasons. Secondarily, I’m not sure that the engineers named on the patents are always the best appointed defenders of education against patent assertion.
On the other hand, the Innovator’s Agreement has several virtues that my proposal does not. First, it already exists and has been vetted by Twitter’s undoubtedly super-expensive lawyers. Second, nobody would have to create a trust, fund it, and convince various patent holders to put their faith in it.
Under the circumstances, I think Khan Academy did the right thing by adopting the Innovator’s Agreement, and I think we should all encourage other holders of education-relevant patents to do the same. And by “encourage,” I mean both praise those that do adopt it and pressure those that don’t. Schools could even go so far as to make institution of the agreement a contractual requirement. Creation of a trust is always a possibility later down the line, using the Innovator’s Agreement as a template. (Twitter was kind enough to release the text of the agreement under a Creative Commons license.)
The post Patents Rethought: Khan Academy Did the Right Thing appeared first on e-Literate.
Other predictions revolve around rising demand for cloud-based integration, an upheaval in the tech supplier landscape, and the expected 100 percent shift of dev and test to the cloud. Do you have your own predictions? Let's talk about it on Twitter @murph_cj.
—By Chris Murphy, Oracle Director of Cloud Content
By Michael FeldsteinMore Posts (1052)
Carl Straumsheim has a good piece out on the Khan Academy patent Inside Higher Ed today. Much of it is a primer on the uses and limitations of defensive patents, but there is a piece on the specific nature of the patent pledge that Khan Academy has signed that I missed. The pledge, originally created by Twitter, is quite similar to my own proposal in a number of ways. It turns the decision-making regarding offensive use of the patent over to another party and, importantly, the agreement travels with the patent, even if it changes hands:
The IPA is a new way to do patent assignment that keeps control in the hands of engineers and designers. It is a commitment from Twitter to our employees that patents can only be used for defensive purposes. We will not use the patents from employees’ inventions in offensive litigation without their permission. What’s more, this control flows with the patents, so if we sold them to others, they could only use them as the inventor intended.
Shame on me for not doing my homework.
The big difference between this pledge and the one I propose is that I am suggesting that the third party be a trust rather than the inventing engineer. This has several virtues. First, engineers die, and not all of them are going to be equally vigilant in protecting education. Can the engineer sell this right to somebody else? Can the right be inherited? If it isn’t inherited, is the patent then unencumbered? Giving the rights to a trust lays this concern to rest. It also creates a proactive deterrent because the trust could sue anybody that is asserting an ed tech patent.
What I take from the details of Twitter’s pledge is that my proposal is probably legally viable. The original pledge just needs to be adapted to serve the specific needs of education.
Here is another graph that I created in Python with Pyplot:
I blanked out the database name in the example graph to hide it.
This is a graphical version of my onewaitevent.sql script. It queries the AWR looking at a particular wait event per hour. You look at the number of wait events in an hour to see how busy the system was and then the average elapsed time for that hour. Also, you set the smallest number of waits to include so you can drop hours where nothing is going on.
In the example graph you can find times where the average time for a db file sequential read is high and the system is busy. You use the top graph to see how busy the system is and the bottom to see where the average time spikes.
Still just an experiment but I thought I would pass it along. It isn’t that hard to create the graph in Python and I seem to have a lot of flexibility since I’m writing code instead of using an existing program like Excel.
By Phil HillMore Posts (384)
Analysts and sources I spoke with Monday, both on and off the record, said the decision to bring on Bill Ballhaus as CEO was a combination of Bhatt failing to make progress building the company’s business and lacking the experience needed to successfully run a company of that scale. And that means at least several years before Providence Equity Partners, which owns a majority of the company after paying $1.64 billion for it in July 2011, begins actively marketing the company for sale, according to industry experts.
Earlier this week I wrote about Apollo Education Group, parent of the University of Phoenix, putting itself up for sale due to its weakening financial position. I also noted that I doubt that McGraw-Hill Education is going to be able to go public in the near-term. Part of the reason for this latter observation is the dramatic fall of Pearson in the stock market, triggered by its warnings that it would miss earnings estimates. In Audrey’s excellent year-end post on the business of ed tech, she noted:
Private equity firms sure love buying ed-tech companies. Perhaps because the stock market’s sorta “meh” about them.
Despite the talk of record investments in ed tech and digital content, the reality of the business of big education companies is not so robust. In fact, there is a massive decline in market caps for many of these large companies, as investors are seeing real weakness. The weakness can be felt in private equity acquisitions as well as public market valuations. To get a sense of the latter on how dramatic the decline has been in just the past year, I combined the market capitalization of four publicly-traded companies – Pearson, Wiley, Apollo Group, and BridgePoint (Ashford University) – over the past two years.
Admittedly, this is a somewhat arbitrary combination of companies based on public markets, but I wanted to get a broader sense of market valuation than just one company at a time. Just between these four companies, they have lost $13.5 billion in market value in the past 10 months, more than half of that drop from Pearson alone. To put this in perspective, the record private investment in learning technology, as described by Ambient this month, was less than half this amount for 2015.
At e-Literate we seldom talk about stock prices, as we are not focused on investments. But this aggregate view is worth considering to understand that all is not rosy for technology-based companies serving the education sector.
The post The Massive Decline In Larger Education Company Market Caps appeared first on e-Literate.
That’s right, it’s been a touch over 6 months and my YouTube channel has just hit the 1000 subscriber mark.
This YouTube experience has been quite odd. My plan was to try and upload a video every weekday for the first 2 months, and I came pretty close to hitting that target. Once I had got a bit of content on the channel, I was inevitably going to kick back a little. After all, there is the website, the blog, life and that annoyance they call work to consider. I think a realistic target is to aim for is 1-2 videos a week.
There will inevitably be periods (like this last 2 weeks) where I don’t hit that, but just like writing, I’m not going to beat myself up about it. It’s the normal ebb and flow of things.
So far the technical videos have almost all been based on command line examples, which is similar to my approach when doing technical presentations. That’s suited me while I’ve been finding my feet, but over time there will be a number of different formats. I’m probably going to avoid having my image in the videos. I don’t like being in front of the camera that much, as I have to suck my gut in for extended periods of time. I liked doing the car videos, as I was less self conscious about the camera while I was concentrating on the driving, but the sound quality was really bad, so I’m not sure if I’ll do more of those. We shall see.
The channel content will become more eclectic over time, because the DBA job is quite eclectic. There’s no point trying to bullshit about being a specialist, because I’m not one.
I would quite like to try my hand at some totally non-technical stuff, like a vlog maybe, but if I do that, it will probably end up on another channel, so it doesn’t dilute this channel too much. We’ll see what happens.
Anyway, to everyone who has subscribed so far, thank you. Thanks to all the folks that have done cameos for me so far. I’ve got a whole bunch more coming. If you’ve not already seen my channel, give it a try and see what you think.
Here’s to the next 1000 subscribers!
YouTube : 6 Months and 1000 Subscribers! was first posted on January 14, 2016 at 8:12 pm.
©2012 "The ORACLE-BASE Blog". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement.
By Michael FeldsteinMore Posts (1052)
You may have heard that Khan Academy has filed for several patents. Audrey Watters has written a really strong piece providing the details of the filings in the context of the history of ed tech patents and showing why some academics feel that the patent system clashes with the values upon which academia was built. In the process, she excavates some of my personal history in the Blackboard patent war. While I am sympathetic to arguments against ed tech or software patents on principle, my own personal reasons for getting involved with that fight were more utilitarian. I believed then, as I do now, that patents threaten to kill innovation in educational technology due to the specific characteristics of the market. The outcome of Blackboard v. Desire2Learn did not end that threat, although it did temporarily reduce it. The conversation being provoked by Khan Academy’s filings offers a new opportunity to come up with a more permanent solution.Understanding the Threat
The Blackboard patent fight provides us with a good case study to understand the nature of the problem. Blackboard was granted a patent related to roles and permissions in an LMS. Specifically, they patented the ability of a system to have a single user set up simultaneously as a teacher in one course and a student in another. When academics hear the patent boiled down this simply, several objections usually come up. The first is obviousness. It doesn’t seem like such a simple function should be patentable. The second is prior art. It seems like other, earlier systems probably went down this path. This latter argument took on particular resonance, since many of these systems were developed by and for academics. There was a sense at the time that Blackboard effectively stole a basic concept behind the LMS from its customers and was using it to limit their alternatives. But neither of these problems were at the heart of what made the Blackboard patent so dangerous. Rather, it was the patent’s breadth of applicability. If it stood, there probably wasn’t a mainstream LMS in existence at the time that wouldn’t infringe. When Blackboard sued Desire2Learn for infringement (or “asserted” their patent, in legal parlance), they were attempting to affirm the validity of the patent. Had they won in court, or had Desire2Learn settled out of court, then Blackboard could have sued any LMS developer and, in principle, any LMS adopter.
But it was worse than that. Blackboard had other patent filings, some of which were also quite broad. It was reasonable to worry that the company was preparing to pursue a strategy known as “royalty stacking,” in which they could charge competitors multiple royalties for multiple patents. What would this do to the LMS market? In a big enough industry like, say, mobile phones, companies like Apple and Samsung can sue the pants off each other for patent infringement and still stay happily in business. The LMS business is nothing like that. Instructure, the only new entrant that has gained substantial traction in North American higher ed in the last decade, did so by spending twice as much money as they made, with most of that going to sales and marketing. If Instructure had to pay multiple royalties to Blackboard, there probably would be no Instructure today, and there almost certainly would be no publicly traded company. A successful royalty stacking strategy would have killed the possibility of new competition and given Blackboard a permanent choke hold on the market. I didn’t care to fight about which LMS company should gain or lose market share or whether software patents are good or bad in principle, but I sure did care about whether there would be long-term competition and innovation in educational technology.Fighting Back
Once the danger became apparent, different parties took different strategies to fight the threat, depending on their resources and legal standing. Desire2Learn fought back both in court and by challenging the validity of the patent through US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Sakai, Moodle, and ATutor open source communities enlisted the help of the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) to file separate patent challenges on their behalf. Having no lawyers and no legal standing myself, I took a different tack. I sought to make the patent strategy a loser economically. I believed that Blackboard’s customers and prospects would reject the company if only they fully understood the patent, the strategy, and the broader implications. So I did my best to provide the necessary education. I wrote a plain English translation of the patent claim. I started a Wikipedia page to document the history of LMS development, to identify potential prior art for the legal case but also, and perhaps more importantly, to place Blackboard’s assertions of innovation in an historic context. I interviewed legal experts and explained court proceedings. Ultimately, it was up to the university decision-makers, and not me, to decide how Blackboard’s actions should affect their purchasing decisions. But I did everything I could to make sure that they had the knowledge that they needed to make informed decisions. As did other bloggers at the time.
In one important way, the strategy was far more effective than I ever imagined it could be (or than I frankly intended it to be). Blackboard’s reputation was already shaky, for a variety of reasons ranging from product bugs to poor customer service to high-pressure sales tactics to a proclivity for buying up popular alternatives and then killing them off. The patent issue crystalized their brand image, in much the same way that we sometimes see a single gaffe or incident crystalize nascent opinions of a politician—like John Kerry’s “for it before I was against it” or George Bush’s “Heckuva job, Brownie.” There is no doubt in my mind—none—that Blackboard would have substantially better share today had they done nothing different other than refraining from filing that law suit. I always argued that the goal should be to incentivize better market behaviors, and that treatment of companies should change when their behaviors change. And yet to this day, there are institutions that will not even consider evaluating Blackboard because the stakeholders think it’s a bad company, even when they can’t fully articulate why they think that. Even a decade after the patent fight started, and five years and two CEOs after it ended.
And that’s the problem. Yes, we established the principle that a company that asserts an ed tech patent would be punished in the marketplace. Some ed tech leaders learned that lesson and will remember it. Others will not. Even inside Blackboard, even among employees who were there at the time, the institutional memory is fading. Meanwhile, none of the entrepreneurs who entered the space since 2010 have any reason to have even heard of the dispute. And customers don’t remember the details either. The deterrent lesson of Blackboard v. Desire2Learn is time-limited, it is poorly targeted, and it is fading.
We need a better, more permanent solution.A Complex Problem
So that was Blackboard, circa 2006. What about Khan Academy now? What does it mean that they are filing for patents? What does it mean that they have signed a pledge not to assert their patents except against other parties that have asserted patents? What is the motivation here? What is the effect?
I believe that Khan Academy has good reason to file for patents even if their intentions are entirely noble. Perhaps especially then. Online learning in general and code academies in particular are large and growing markets. Typically, corporate entities only get targeted by patent suits when they are rich enough to produce a big payout. But Khan Academy is a potential target for the opposite reason; they have the ability to reduce the total size of the market by satisfying demand with free offerings. Why pay for a course at Acme Code Academy when you can get it for free from Khan Academy?
Are there actors out there who are morally bankrupt enough to sue a non-profit foundation for giving away free education? If there aren’t now, there will be. Sooner or later, ed tech will get its Martin Shkreli. As long as software patents are legal, Khan Academy is vulnerable to infringement suits. And while owning patents offers far from perfect protection against this danger, it is still better than no protection at all.
I don’t worry about what Khan Academy is likely to do with its software patents. But I do worry about whoever the next owner of the patents might be. I have heard Sal Khan muse that his tutorial videos might still be around and useful to somebody 100 years from now. Unfortunately, that same possibility exists for his software patents. Patent pledges are nice, but they only survive as long as the good will of the current patent owner lasts. Sal Khan may keep his guns locked up safely in a cabinet, but the fact remains that there are now a few more guns in the world that could get out onto the streets and in the wrong hands.
We need a better solution.A Better Solution?
Needless to say, I have thought about this problem for a long time. There may be a way for good actors in educational technology to get the defensive protection that they need from patent ownership while still reducing the long-term risk to the people that they serve, but they will have to go further than a patent pledge. What I have in mind is a legal structure that combines characteristics of a patent pool and a land conservation easement.
It would work something like this:
- A legal trust would be formed by a third party with moral credibility, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation or the Berkman Center.
- Patent holders would cede their right to assert their patents to the trust, except under specific conditions of self-defense, in perpetuity.
- In return, they would gain the right to assert other patents in the pool in specified self-defense circumstances, as overseen by the trust.
- The trust would also be empowered to assert the patents in the pool against third parties that are asserting educational technology patents, as a general deterrent against ed tech patent assertion.
I am not a lawyer and am not sure that this would work. But it seems plausible.
If there are any patent holders out there who are potentially interested in this approach, please know that I want to do anything I can to help. I may be able to help coax other patent holders to the table, and I certainly would be happy to promote the good efforts of any company willing to make such a commitment.
Integrating Oracle Document Cloud and Oracle Sales Cloud, maintaining data level business object security
Link to article
A common question is how do you add a contact to a Account in Sales Cloud? Ive seen developers (including me) try to issue a mergeOrganizaiton on the org, however this is not correct. In Oracle Fusion , Contacts are not "addded" to accounts but they are "related" to accounts.. Therefore to add a contact to a account you need to add a "Relationship" which links the contact and the organization. Here's a sample payloadWSDL <host>/crmCommonSalesParties/RelationshipService?wsdl
SOAP Request Payload
<soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:typ="http://xmlns.oracle.com/apps/crmCommon/salesParties/relationshipService/types/" xmlns:rel="http://xmlns.oracle.com/apps/crmCommon/salesParties/relationshipService/">
<!-- ContactId -->
<!-- AccountId -->
Groovy Script Example
def addContact =
ObjectPartyId : '300000000943126', /*Contact */
SubjectPartyId : '300000000943078', /*Account */
RelationshipType : 'CONTACT',
RelationshipCode : 'CONTACT',
CreatedByModule : 'HZ_WS',
Status : 'A'
So https://extranet.example.com asks for SSO details and after keying in SSO username and password goes to http://intranet.example.com.
The support.oracle.com article DMZ Configuration with Oracle E-Business Suite 11i (Doc ID 287176.1) has listed 4 checks which could be the reason for this issue:
H6: Redirection to an Incorrect Server During LoginIf you are getting redirected to an incorrect server during the login process, check the following:
- Whether the hirearchy type of the profile options mentioned in Section 5.1 is set to SERVRESP .
select PROFILE_OPTION_NAME,HIERARCHY_TYPE from fnd_profile_options where profile_option_name inPROFILE_OPTION_NAME HIERARCHY_TYPE
All good on this point
select fnd_profile.value_specific('APPS_FRAMEWORK_AGENT',null,null,null,null,) from dual;This query returned https://extranet.example.com
wrapper.bin.parameters=-DJTFDBCFILE=This was incorrect. It was pointing to the intranet jdbc file location.
select node_name,node_id,server_id from fnd_nodes;This was overwritten in the dbc file, with appl_server_id of intranet when autoconfig was done on intranet and overwritten with appl_server_id of extranet when autoconfig was done on extranet, as the DBC file location and name were same for both intranet and extranet.
Then I asked them to correct the s_dbc_file_name variable in the context file of extranet node. Run autoconfig on extranet, verify the value of dbcfile in jserv.properties DJTFDBCFILE parameter, verify that the DBC file had the server_id of the extranet node. Restart all services.Checked again, and it worked again.
So apart from checking the values of context file variables like s_webentryhost, s_webentrydomain, s_active_port, you also need to check the value of s_dbc_file while verifying the setups for extranet configuration. This can happen in 11i , R12.1 and R12.2 also.
I’m on two overlapping posting kicks, namely “lessons from the past” and “stuff I keep saying so might as well also write down”. My recent piece on Oracle as the new IBM is an example of both themes. In this post, another example, I’d like to memorialize some points I keep making about business intelligence and other analytics. In particular:
- BI relies on strong data access capabilities. This is always true. Duh.
- Therefore, BI and other analytics vendors commonly reinvent the data management wheel. This trend ebbs and flows with technology cycles.
Similarly, BI has often been tied to data integration/ETL (Extract/Transform/Load) functionality.* But I won’t address that subject further at this time.
*In the Hadoop/Spark era, that’s even truer of other analytics than it is of BI.
My top historical examples include:
- The 1970s analytic fourth-generation languages (RAMIS, NOMAD, FOCUS, et al.) commonly combined reporting and data management.
- The best BI visualization technology of the 1980s, Executive Information Systems (EIS), was generally unsuccessful. The core reason was a lack of what we’d now call drilldown. Not coincidentally, EIS vendors — notably leader Comshare — didn’t do well at DBMS-like technology.
- Business Objects, one of the pioneers of the modern BI product category, rose in large part on the strength of its “semantic layer” technology. (If you don’t know what that is, you can imagine it as a kind of virtual data warehouse modest enough in its ambitions to actually be workable.)
- Cognos, the other pioneer of modern BI, depending on capabilities for which it needed a bundled MOLAP (Multidimensional OnLine Analytic Processing) engine.
- But Cognos later stopped needing that engine, which underscores my point about technology ebbing and flowing.
I’m not as familiar with the details for MicroStrategy, but I do know that it generates famously complex SQL so as to compensate for the inadequacies of some DBMS, which had the paradoxical effect of creating performance challenges for MicroStrategy used over more capable analytic DBMS, which in turn led at least Teradata to do special work to optimize MicroStrategy processing. Again, ebbs and flows.
More recent examples of serious DBMS-like processing in BI offerings may be found in QlikView, Zoomdata, Platfora, ClearStory, Metamarkets and others. That some of those are SaaS (Software as a Service) doesn’t undermine the general point, because in each case they have significant data processing technology that lies strictly between the visualization and data store layers.
- Context for this post may be found in my piece on The two sides of BI. (August, 2013)
- Right Oracle Technology Choice for the Right Person (Oracle Partner Hub: ISV Migration Center Team)
via Oracle Partner Hub: ISV Migration Center Team https://blogs.oracle.com/imc/
I’ve continued to play around with Cloud Control 13c and I’m generally getting a nice vibe from it.
One of the things I really hated about Grid Control 10g and 11g was the navigation. It felt like you had to click on 50 links to get to the thing you wanted. When Cloud Control 12c came along and had a main menu it was a massive improvement. Even so, it was still a little annoying as the menu was split, with some bits on the left and some bits on the top-right.
In Cloud Control 13c, these menus have been brought together into the top-right of the screen.
If the screen size is smaller, the buttons collapse to show just the icons, which saves space.
It probably sounds really trivial, but having both menus together is a really nice touch. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been fumbling around, unable to find something, only to remember it is in that blasted menu at the top-right. Now there is no excuse.
The job scheduler navigation is also a lot nicer. In Cloud Control 12c we had a bunch of drop-downs and a “Go” button.
In Cloud Control 13c there are tiles along the top to alter the context of the output and the tree on the left allows you to quickly flip between criteria.
It is so much quicker to get the information you want this way.
So as far as I’m concerned, Cloud Control 13c is getting a big thumbs-up from a navigation perspective!
A couple of people have asked my impression about the new look and feel. If we ignore the navigation, most of the pages are quite similar to what we had before, so there is no need to panic. Overall it has a sparser, cleaner look, which is more in keeping with the way the web is these days, so I think that’s a good thing. Anyone who has used Oracle Cloud will find the look very familiar.
I guess the biggest bonus of the new look and feel is it is more responsive. On some of the old pages you had a lot of sideways scrolling to do if you have a small browser window. The new look and feel deals a lot better with that. It’s not perfect, but it is better. So I’m giving the new look and feel a big thumbs-up too!
Being the bitter old man that I am, I reserve the right to change my mind and hate it all in the future.
Caveat: I use a very small subset of the functionality available from Cloud Control, so my opinion is going to be based on the bits I use a lot. It might be that other areas have been adversely affected by the new navigation or look and feel, but the bits I care about are looking good.Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 13c : Navigation and “Look and Feel” was first posted on January 13, 2016 at 3:40 pm.
©2012 "The ORACLE-BASE Blog". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement.
Last Month We held our Live Webinar on “E-Business Suite Architecture” and we had a very busy Q&A session. As we had more questions than we had time to tackle live, today we are bringing you the transcript and extra answers. Looking at kind of questions We realised there is still lot of doubt Oracle E-Business Suite 12.2 for Apps DBAs so we decided to have another FREE Webinar on New Features in Oracle E-Business Suite 12.2 this Friday 15th of Jan 9AM PST/ 12 PM EST/ 5 PM GMT / 10:30 PM IST
Q1. What new things I should learn to prepare for Oracle 12.2 as Apps DBA ?
Ans: In 12.2 Weblogic is introduced so it is good to learn Oracle WebLogic Domain, Admin & Managed Servers Cluster etc . It is also good to understand Architecture in EBS 12.2 and new File System (Dual File System) including new patching tool ADOP and long list (Check course content we cover in our Training for Oracle Apps DBA 12.2)
Q2. Is there any downtime in Online Patching (ADOP)?
Ans: Oracle introduced new patching utility ADOP (Online Patching) and when you apply patch in 12.2 now there is a very short period of downtime when the application tier services are shut down and restarted. The database remains open all the time.
Q3. Are there any plans to make Online Patching available with pre-12.2 releases?
Ans: Nothing that we are aware of. As of now Online patching can only be used with Release 12.2.
and lot of other questions
Do you think you have such questions in mind or you think you know enough about the features of Oracle E-Business Suite 12.2 ?
Are you interested in becoming an Oracle Apps DBA ?
We invite you to Join us on our live Apps DBA webinar on Friday (15th January,2016) at 10:30 – 11:30 PM IST/ 5:00-6:00 PM GMT to know about the New Features of E-Business Suite 12.2. highlighting the New Features in 12.2 and the key points that everyone must know to become an Apps DBA.
To Open door for Career in Oracle Apps DBA Click on the button below to register for our FREE Webinar and Learn / Become an Oracle Apps DBA:
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_system_stats('EXADATA');
BEGIN dbms_stats.gather_system_stats('EXADATA'); END;
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-20001: Invalid or inconsistent input values
ORA-06512: at "SYS.DBMS_STATS", line 27155
ORA-06512: at line 1
It appears to be a BUG, and the following workaround should resolve the issue:
(1) As SYS user execute the scripts below:
(2) Then, re-run your DBMS_STATS call:
Indeed this worked for us and hope this would work for you as well.