Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Re: Is it just me (WHO columns)

RE: Re: Is it just me (WHO columns)

From: Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:36:38 -0400
Message-ID: <KNEIIDHFLNJDHOOCFCDKCEDMFDAA.mwf@rsiz.com>


"WHO" columns are actually one of the oldest and most useful features of the Oracle e-Business suite. Since all applications everywhere should be as compatible as possible with the e-Business suite to ease the integration effort when the pending or future purchase is complete, you might want to consider using the e-Business suite standard columns if you have legal access to the documents that describe them or can recall them from a former life. I'm not sure whether my knowledge of them is still subject to non-disclosure, so I won't quote the standards (which date from at least 1987) here.

Way cool point, Nuno, that having WHO columns makes logminer style auditing complete and (I think), bulletproof. At least if you're logging and archiving, which you could require as part of the audit requirements.

mwf

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of dbvision_at_optusnet.com.au
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 9:22 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Re: Is it just me

> Lisa Spory <lspory_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Logminer won't help me track the WHO, especially since in this case the
> who is obscured through connection pooling and only available to the
> database via an explicitly set application context.

It could. Add a column to every table to keep the WHO. LAST_CHG_BY is a good name. Then just update it for everyone, via trigger. It should now end
up in the redo log. Of course you still would need to capture that from the app server. App context would be the easiest, I guess. Avoid loosing deletes
by never deleting: use a flag column to say if the row is active or not.

> If I list partition by table_name, then how is the contention on my
> single table any different than having a separate table per table_name?
> (ignoring momentarily my desire to elegantly "slide" data off, which
> could be handled less elegantly to avoid contention issues instead).

Not very different. The idea with the partitioning would be precisely to give you the low contention of the multiple log tables. Not exactly linear, but near enough.

> I need to poke around and gather numbers related to the number of
> concurrent transactions I expect to support as well, since again, I am
> not auditing the whole database, mostly setup/parameter data.

Ah, that's MUCH better. Makes sense too.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
dbvison_at_optusnet.com.au



Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to:  oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Aug 13 2004 - 08:32:37 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US