| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.tools -> Re: Is Oracle deliberately difficult?
See inline comments, this is response to the 2 previous posts:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:01:52 +1100, "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_iprimus.com> wrote:
>As for the bill stuff -I guess your objection is that our customer is going
>to be sent a reminder letter despite the fact that they've paid up. That
>sounds like normal business practice to me: "Payments received after Xth
>September will be included on your next statement" is a phrase I see
>constantly. Along with "If you have already made payment, please disregard
>this reminder".
The principle should be considered here, not the specific example.
You've got a database record that you shouldn't be doing something
with (logically) and you are doing it. I could create examples where
that is a REAL problem, but the point is the theory, not 1 specific
example.
>>
>> 2) Space management
>> Oracle makes you do too much work with worrying about extents, block
>> sizes, etc. You can justify some of it by saying you can tweak your
>> performance, but not for what the effort seems to be.
>>
>
>I don't know about effort. But then I take a cavalier approach to these
>things: I aim for one giant extent per segment, and am happy to rest content
>with all that space sitting there empty for most of the time, knowing that
>it will be used eventually. Hard disks are cheap, and I'd throw more hard
>disks at the problem rather than worry about extent management. All extents
>within a given tablespace should be the same size anyway, and 8i's local
>management of tablespace makes that a painless task these days.
>
>And there's really no debate about block size these days (despite what some
>people would have you believe). For most Unixes it's 8Kb without thinking,
>and same for NT. www.ixora.com.au has the details.
>
In the previous reply, Jerry Gitomer wrote:
Block sizes are set when you create a database. The big issue is
whether or not to go with the maximum block size Oracle supports. The
general consensus is that for most databases you should go as big as
Oracle will support.
So, we've got 2 Oracle experts, 1 says 'no debate- 8K' and 1 says 'max that Oracle supports'. This is easy? Right?
>> 3) Process management
>> It seems to be someone of a chore to deal with who is locking the
>> database, what is running at what priority, batch vs. online
>> transactions at the same time, etc.
>>
On our system, we can set a priority from 1 (low) to 100 (high). Most
system stuff is set automatically, but we can arrange lower priority
batch jobs at 50, high priority online programs at 64-70, the
attorneys get a special program they run at 76, etc. Yes, we have to
know our org, applications, etc. But, we DO, and we can adjust this.
The OS has no idea about this.
>Can't say it's ever been a problem for me. Certainly not locking an entire
>database!
>
>Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts.
>
>Regards
>HJR
>
>
>
>> I know there are solutions to these, but they are some of the big ones
>> that I have dealt with.
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:16:25 +0100, Sid_James <sid.james_at_virgin.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I've been learning Oracle for a while now and I do think of it as quite
>> >challenging in an enjoyable way. I don't use Enterprise Manager, I'd
>> >rather get to to know the 'nuts and bolts'. However, having done a SQL
>> >Server administrator's course, I can't help thinking that Oracle is
>> >rather more difficult to use than maybe it should be.
>> >
>> >Sensible, rational responses that shoot me up in flames are always
>> >preferable!
>> >
>> >e d
>>
>>
>> _______________
>> Jay M. Scheiner
>> Programmer/Analyst
>> Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP
>> remove _nospm_ from email address
>> Opinions are my own only!
>
>
 |
 |