Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.tools -> Re: diff bewteen 8i and 9i?

Re: diff bewteen 8i and 9i?

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr_at_www.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 21:47:10 GMT
Message-ID: <3b160b1a@news.iprimus.com.au>

"Randall Roberts" <randall_at_filer.org.nospam> wrote in message news:3b15ef8b_2_at_news.pcmagic.net...
> Two things David Austin told us that Howard didn't point out... the
 INTERNAL
> account and server manager are actually going away. (According to David,
> some people have successfully used 8i's server manager... but it hasn't
 been
> fully tested).
>

I'll confirm that there's a section in the course notes stating that Server Manager is defunct, and 'connect internal' now produces an error message.

> David talked about KEEP/RECYCLE/DEFAULT only to say that the documentation
> so far is written on beta software. At this point they're still
 supporting
> the multiple pools only for the default block size. But that doesn't mean
> they won't either get rid of them, or expand the support later.
>

The course notes agree that keep/recycle and default only relate to the 'standard block size' (ie, the one you pick when you create the database). All other block sizes chosen when you create a tablespace must have a home to go to in the buffer cache -but those 2, 4 8, 16 or 32K non-standard caches are flat caches with no internal divisions.

Incidentally, Nuno was correct when he complained that the *total* SGA size is fixed, since you can add or remove bits from the SGA (in units called 'granules') only upto the limit specified by an over-riding SGA size parameter. Still, strikes me Nuno wants blood from a stone!! 'Sgot to be better than a kick in the teeth!

> David also mentioned that 9i is supposed to more fully support ANSI
 standard
> SQL.
They've incorporated ISO 1999 SQL throughout. There are now Cross (ie Cartesian) joins, Natural joins (ie, the join is automatically made where columns of the same name can be found, and never mind about a where clause), "Join ... On..." is supported, and proper Outer joins (Left, right and full), using the proper syntax and not dodgy plus signs. The CASE statement replaces decodes. Scalar subqueries are supported (ie, select dept_name, (select count(*) from emp) from dept -yielding "Marketing 15, Sales 356, Executive Floor 456783").

Oh, and objects now have proper inheritance.

>I am hoping that they're going to support scrolling cursors, so we can
> FETCH NEXT, PRIOR, FIRST, LAST, ABSOLUTE n, and RELATIVE n. Any mention
 of
> those Howard?

Sorry to disappoint, but not that I can see so far (but I'm only up to Chapter 9 -give me a chance!!!).

>How soon to you think schools participating in the Oracle
> Education programs will be able to get those 17 chapters?
>

Difficult to say -the US will get it first, of course. Trainers in OZ are meeting the product for the first time in June. I imagine we won't be training it until at least Octoberish. Mileage will vary. I don't rate your chances if you live in Timbucctoo of seeing it before 2002 (and no, it wasn't intended to rhyme).

Incidentally, I forgot to mention: ORA-1555s are a thing of the past, since you can now protect rollback required for read-consisitent image preparation for any given length of time (the default appears to be 30 seconds). Must be worth an upgrade for that fact alone, I'd say.

Regards
HJR
> Best!
>
> Randall
>
> Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote in message
> news:3b150fe5.746875_at_news-server...
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001 23:17:01 +1000, "Howard J. Rogers"
> > <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Mmmm. Enough there to keep me busy for a while, I guess.
> > >
> >
> > Not wrong. Quite a lot. I found the bitmapped blocks quite
> > interesting. And of course, the multiple block size and individual
> > caches for each block size. But haven't found the cache/tablespace
> > yet, still good old KEEP/RECYCLE/DEFAULT only. That's a real bummer.
> >
> > Also, in the bit I saw, the SGA could be re-sized within limits. The
> > individual bits inside the SGA can be re-sized, but the overall total
> > size was still a constant.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Nuno Souto
> > nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
> > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html
>
>
Received on Sat Jul 21 2001 - 16:47:10 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US