Re: Oracle vs. Sybase

Lee Doty wrote:
> What, no new "Sybase sux" thread? I'm dissappointed.

You'll stay disapointed. Picked on the wrong person for that sort of music...

> snip
> What I do have a problem with is person B belittling person A for his
> opinion. This problem is aggrevated by the fact that most of the
> reasons person B gives are blatantly incorrect.
>

Hmmm, so "You've gotta be joking!" for you is a belittling remark? And a reason? Considering Transact-SQL as an aberration is a personal attack? Interesting concept...

> (they also have some weaknesses that
> Sybase/MS don't have, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

How true, can't agree with you more...  

> >> "Stimpy, your wealth of ignorance asounds me"

Hmmm, a belittling remark, perheaps? Obviously of the same calibre as "You've gotta be joking!". A very equitable perspective, might I add?

> You can do this in Sybase and MS SQL Server too. As a matter of fact,
> the syntax is exactly the same.
> snip
> (well, not exactly the same, there is probably a 2% difference, for

Hang on, is it the same or not exactly the same? Make up your mind, ferchrissakes! <G> Relax, I know what you mean.

> more snip...
> As for the DDL, it is also almost identical to MS/Sybase.

Above it's Sybase/MS, now it's MS/Sybase. I was refering to Sybase. You brought SQL Server in of YOUR own will. I mentioned nothing of it... What, you're telling me that SQL Server is still the same product as Sybase? If so, how VERY interesting...

> more snip...
> Newsflash: In our project we are finding that things we needed to do
> with Transact SQL will require PL/SQL in about 98%+ of the cases.
> This leads me to believe that you don't know what you are talking
> about. (along with the rest of your posts, for that matter)

You're converting from something presumably DESIGNED for Sybase and splatting it into ORACLE. Not surprised you need that much PL/SQL. After all, even in systems designed for ORACLE I keep finding heaps of unnecessary PL/SQL (and SQL) code. It would be interesting to make a comparison of something genuinely designed for Sybase and something genuinely designed for ORACLE, starting from a common spec. That would be a valid comparison IMO. Unfortunately, having been (like you on this occasion) on the wrong end of the stick too many times, I tend to shy away from using a conversion as a good guideline for gauging another product. There are usually too many design compromises for the comparison to be valid, don't you think?

> more snip..
> Which parts are you really missing? Maybe I'm just showing my own
> lack of knowledge here, but I haven't ran into major holes yet.
> Perhaps you could give specific examples? What would you like to be
> able to do... tell me and I'll try it with SQL Server.
>

As I said, I was talking about Sybase. You brought SQL Server into this, not me... I'll still venture a few, which I believe apply to SQL Server, like: from the point of view of the DBA, be able to use a block size larger than 2k; from the point of view of the developer, be able to use outer joins without any restrictions (say for example have two views with complex joins and outer join the two)?

Even better, have a "between" join (I don't know the exact relational terminology for this one. I'll let you figure out where it could be useful, it's an interesting exercise...). Goes something like this:

SELECT a.value_col,b.class_col
from table_a a, table_b b
where a.value_col between b.col_max and b.col_min;

Simple to do in ORACLE, but murder on just about any other "SQL"-based database I've tried it on...

What, "Of course it can be done on the latest, whitest and brightest version"? Naaaahhh, wrong approach. You see: this is the sort of stuff that has been in ORACLE for > 11 years. Not in the latest release put out to shut up the dissenting voices or catch up on "tick the feature"...

> I believe that you could benefit from your own advice here.
> As for me, I never mind a spirited debate.

Good. So why not keep it just like that, spirited, and skip the personal attacks? Unless you consider disagreement with your opinion as a "flame"? If so, consider yourself "flamed"...

> ...and just for clarity, you are the owner of the original flame,
> pointed at Todd Boss, if I'm not mistaken.

Nope, that wasn't a flame. I said "You've gotta be joking!" at a comment I considered irrelevant, the "awesome" bit. That is a flame? Well, tough. All I can say is: get a thicker skin, you'll need it in your professional life.

> snip...
> Sorry, that didn't help.

Sorry, I can't help more... Obviously you're not aware of the origin of Sybase (and ergo SQL Server).

> Anyway, from what I can tell, we have three equally likely scenarios
> here:

All points wrong.

> Now, you are saying, "hey, you are kinda slamming me, you're the
> troller buddy", and to an extent, you are correct,

Thank you. "Kinda" takes a lot of character to admit it. To a certain extent. <G>

>I do enjoy putting uninformed loudmouths (especially the insulting ones) in their place.

Loudmouth? Uninformed? Insulting? My place? Take a break, pal. Smell the rowses... You derived all that from "You've gotta be joking!"? What a MIND! Ever considered a career as a psychologist?

While I'm on the subject, loudmouth would be if I wrote LIKE THIS. I didn't.

Uninformed would be if I didn't know anything about relational databases. I do know a little, not much, but quite sufficient to earn a living out of them for > 9 years in a row ON MY OWN; not behind some huge and comfortable big multinational company where I could sound off with full protection. Plus a few more years when I wasn't on my own...

Insulting? What, you wanna hear REAL insults? Drop me a line and I'll introduce you to some genuine down-under vernacular! ;-)

My place? What do you know of places, me or this industry to tell me where I should be? Who promoted you to "placer"? Get lost! (Sorry pal, but this one was too strong for me to let go. You see, here in Australia nobody "puts someone in their place", sounds too much like pompous twitism...)

> But you will never hear me slam on someone for their ideas (even if
> they like what I don't).

Really?

> What you will hear me slamming people for is
> an uninformed attack on someone else, as was the case here.

Wrong, it wasn't an attack, as explained above. Like I said, get a thicker skin. Or else you're gonna catch a burst vein soon. Take it from me, been around long enough to know what stress is... ;-)  

Cheers
Nuno Souto Received on Wed Jun 25 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT