Re: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?

Tim -

it is a great idea to expand oracle_l to database_l .

My question is , if we were to expand , are we restricting the discussions to RDBMS only or include NOSQL dbs as well.

Usually , we ( I am also in SQL server side ) communicate in Twitter with #sqlhelp tag .

• Zahir

Zahir Mohideen
http://mfzahirdba.blogspot.com/

*Nothing so GREAT was achieved without enthusiasm*

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> >> So, of course, I ask *Oracle* people about it. :)
>
> This thread is a good argument for expanding ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L.
>
> There is a vibrant technical community in SQL Server and it is long past
> time that these communities cross-pollinated better.
>
> As this thread shows, it isn't that one or the other DBMS is better, but
> they can be different in subtle ways which can trip up even the most
> experienced of us.
>
> And, as this thread shows, many of us are tasked with administering both
> DBMS packages, in addition to PostgreSQL and MySQL.
>
> I'm proud to cite my wife, Kellyn <http://dbakevlar.com/>, as an example
> of this breed of renaissance geek, as she is currently president of both
> the Rocky Mountain Oracle Users Group <http://rmoug.org> and of the Denver
> SQL Server users group <http://denversql.org>, and she is likely soon to
> become the first person in the world to achieve both Oracle ACE Director
> (now alumnae) and Microsoft MVP recognition.
>
> One noticeable difference between the two communities is age. On average,
> Kellyn and I find attendees at SQL Server users group events to be about 10
> years younger than Oracle users group events, based on unscientific eyeball
> observation. Also, the SQL Server users group community has a much larger
> percentage of women attendees and speakers (i.e. about 40% for SQL to about
> 20% for Oracle).
>
> As a result, while the ORACLE-L list has been yakking along happily here
> on email for the past 20 years, the SQL Server community has been largely
> conversing on Twitter. Both communities blog at about the same rate and
> volume (in my opinion), and both communities seem to use LinkedIn to the
> same degree (in my opinion). So, the biggest difference in online
> communication style seems to be email vs tweets.
>
> So, if we were to go through the effort of changing from ORACLE-L to
> DATABASE-L (leaving aliases from ORACLE-L to point to DATABASE-L so folks
> can still find us), we would find adoption by the SQL Server community to
> be slow, because they would have a struggle paying attention to, and
> responding to, a high-volume email list. There are undoubtedly good ways
> to integrate email and Twitter, and I'm sure they can be quite seamless,
> but the first question is: what do y'all think?
>
> How do you personally feel about discussing and learning about SQL Server
> as well as Oracle? Would it enhance your prospects?
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/15/18 07:23, Rich J wrote:
>
> On 2018/03/15 07:34, Jeff Smith wrote:
>
> Brent is a friend and an ex-coworker. He wanted to share the background of
> this customer's scenario, in case it would help you with yours.
>
> I let Brent know some folks were having...fun...with his take on
> autocommit.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> *Heh heh heh, I can only imagine. The difference on optimistic vs
> pessimistic concurrency nailed it though - the default combo of optimistic
> & implicit transactions makes sense in Oracle, and the default of
> pessimistic and automatic transactions makes sense in SQL Server. It's when
> you change only one of those two settings that you're screwed.*
>
> *The blog post stemmed from an app that had been written by SQL Server
> people, and then an Oracle guy came in and made a few changes. He switched
> to implicit transactions without understanding that everybody was doing
> single-line inserts/updates all over the place in code, not bothering to
> set transactions. He didn't understand the impact of what he was doing.
> (Not an Oracle jab by any means - the guy was well-meaning but just not
> prepared.)*
>
> *We got called in because performance went straight into the toilet. Even
> worse, rollbacks were rolling back completely unrelated transactions, and
> nobody knew why, hahaha*.
>
> Ah, that context adds a lot to the assertion. I still disagree that
> autocommit is a good practice for applications, whether it's Oracle or SQL
> Server, but I understand where Brent's coming from.
>
> And my intent wasn't to have "fun", but a sanity check for myself. IT
> changes constantly outside of my narrow focus, and as I've been following
> Brent's blog for years, that entry offers an opinion that is completely
> backwards of my understanding of how any modern RDBMS should work.
>
> So, of course, I ask *Oracle* people about it. :)
>
> Thanks all for the sanity check!
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l