Re: primary keys and dictionary overhead
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:12:05 +1100
Message-ID: <4EA539F5.6040503_at_iinet.net.au>
Robert Freeman wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2011 6:43 AM:
> If your response is that the vendor does not supply is with
> good support - then who's fault is that really?
Why, the DBA's of course!
(expensive little things, they are!...)
> Who picked out the vendor and didn't ask questions about future support?
Damagement and project damagement.
> Who didn't pay for support?
Damagement.
> Who is responsible for having bought thispackage in the first place?
Project Damagement.
> All of the reasons to have the change vendorsupplied code, in the end,
> really boil down to some very bad decision making at some point on
> the part of the people who actually bought that code.
And of course that was the fault of the "expensive dbas". Rotten scoundrels!
> There are unfortunate times when you have to bite the bullet and do what you can.
Narh! We'll just ask the dumb DBA to go in and fix it. If he fails, we can always blame him and his/her cost!
> Perhaps the vendor is out of business or perhaps they no longer provide
> support for the version you are on (or my favorite is that we have our
> own internal application that we lost the code tree too).
> Regardless, the reasons that you get in these positions are generally
> due to poor poor laxidasial management of our Enterprise assets.
> The same attitude that would lead one to *carelessly* change vendor code
> is the same attitude that makes it a requirement to do so. In my opinion.
Now,now, Robert! You're making too much sense! Next, youre gonna claim it's never been the "expensive dba's" fault? That's enough frivolity out of you, young man! ;-)
-- Cheers Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia dbvision_at_iinet.net.au -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Oct 24 2011 - 05:12:05 CDT