| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Ridiculous standards (was Re: Varchar2 vs Char)
Chrysalis wrote:
>
> Graham Miller wrote:
> > *snip*
> >
> > ... the site which made the rule that all sub-queries must use
> > 'exists' never 'in'.
>
> It cannot possible be "reasonable" to have such a ridiculous "standard".
> The two constructions are not even equivalent in theory and are
> certainly not so in practice.
> <snip>
>
> Does anyone else have examples of couter-productive standards?
>
Chrysalis,
I have worked around a few large development shops and have encountered
some such restrictions. However, to put them in a different light, I
have found that the restrictions are usually placed because too many
development staff mimic code rather than really understanding it. The IN
construct is so simple that some developers use it without evaluating
the alternative correlated subquery. Frustrated DBAs get driven to such
odd restrictions when this type of development environment is pervasive
and performance is degraded. The DBAs take the complaints about
performance, while the developers take the easy road. Trainers also do
not help the problem when their training does not emphasize both
approaches, the reasons to use each, and how to tell which is better.
I usually don't get involved in these philosophical discussions, but maybe if we look to the root cause of these types of standards, they can be improved.
Regards.
+----------------------------------------------------- | Dan Townsend
+-----------------------------------------------------Received on Mon May 12 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT
 |
 |