Re: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?

Personally, my vote would be oracle-only. Perhaps add a second list maintained with the same style that is for other DBMS.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Zahir Mohideen <zahir.dba_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
//
zztat - The Next-Gen Oracle Performance Monitoring and Reaction Framework!
Visit us at zztat.net | Support our Indiegogo campaign at igg.me/at/zztat |
_at_zztat_oracle

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