Re: Corporate Acceptance of Creating Views ?

Tom,

First, let me say that I consider you to be the planet's leading expert on almost everything Oracle. Your Wrox "Expert One-on-One" book is sitting within arm's reach. However, I am disappointed that your reasons for using views are all based on making life easier for the developer. My reasons for NOT using views are based on making life easier (faster response time) for the end-user. I am still open to persuasion if you can give me some reasons why views are better for the average corporate end-user (not power users who understand how to make joins and so on). I realize that in some examples, a view can be a more logical business construct for certain end-users, but reporting tools can hide the gritty details anyway. I'm not looking for justification of views, just to be convinced that they are beneficial to end users, not just developers.

"Thomas Kyte" <tkyte_at_us.oracle.com> wrote in message news:9rn75p0crk_at_drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <9rmtmf$ugueb$1_at_ID-114862.news.dfncis.de>, "Alan" says...
> >
> >Although I don't "outlaw" views, I haven't found a compelling reason to
use
> >them. I create search tables that would otherwise be views, and index
them
> >for optimum querying. Some tables are partially or totally denormalized,
and
> >some have every column indexed. I update the search tables nightly,
weekly,
> >or monthly, depending on business need. I don't have to worry about
queries
> >or indexing affecting OLTP, and query repsonse is excellent because there
> >are fewer joins needed. Also, I don't have the expense of a creating a
view
> >instance for each user.
> >
> >Of course, it really depends on the situation. We are not 7 x 24, so I
have
> >the luxury of running the search table updates overnight, the ad hoc
queries
> >are fairly predictable, and our security needs are pretty static.
> >
> >Anyway, I'm not dogmatic about it, but I do need to be convinced that a
view
> >is the way to go in a particular situation.
> >
>
> why? if the developer has a tool, wants to use the tool, sees value in
the
> tool, why wouldn't you let them use it?
>
> Sometimes, you just want to use it.
>
> I'll try to list some of the reasons:
>
> o layer of protection from changes. I can have 50 reports use a single
view,
> when you change my structures, I fix A view, not 50 reports.
>
> o security. I can build some cool security into them.
>
> o ease of reading code. Instead of having mega lines of SQL in my
procedure, I
> create a view. I can tune the view, I can change the view, the procedure
> remains the same. I like my code to be readable, views can be of IMMENSE
help
> here.
>
> You know what though, this is something that just plain and simply doesn't
need
> to be justified. Its a tool, its a tool to be used. developers should
not have
> to justify to a DBA why they want to use this tool.
>
>
> >"Thomas Kyte" <tkyte_at_us.oracle.com> wrote in message
> >news:9rmeoj01bgk_at_drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <eQoD7.43362$C7.13166440_at_news02.optonline.net>, "jane"
says...
> >> >
> >> >Is it true that in general corporate enviornment, the use of Views is
> >> >discouraged ? even frowned up ?
> >> >
> >> >I was working with this "seasoned" developer on developing reports, I
am
> >new
> >> >to the Oracle enviornment
> >> >and she insisted that I should NOT use views if at all possible,
> >preferablly
> >> >not at all.
> >> >
> >> >"You should be able to get all the data you need with straight
SQL...even
> >if
> >> >it have to go for pages !"
> >> >"...you are creating yet another dependency...it's another object that
> >has
> >> >to be maintained !......"
> >> >
> >> >The thing was with tools like Crystal Reports, it does not handle
manual
> >SQL
> >> >very well (requires
> >> >a separate file to store the query)
> >> >
> >> >Is this true ? Was she full of bs ?
> >> >
> >> >thanks
> >> >jane
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I love views -- for the same reason packages are the only thing you
should
> >use
> >> in real code (never a standalong procedure).
> >>
> >> Packages protect you from changes -- the SPECIFICATION won't change --
but
> >the
> >> implementation might (eg: you find a bug in the algorithm and fix it --
> >the
> >> interface didn't change -- same inputs and outputs but the mechanics
> >changed)
> >>
> >>
> >> Views are the same way. Underlying data structure changes (eg: someone
> >adds a
> >> column, denormalizes a table, splits a single table into two, whatever)
> >don't
> >> affect your CODE -- just your view. Consider the view a
"specificiation",
> >fix
> >> the view -- you've fixed ALL pieces of code that use it.
> >>
> >> There are some people who say -- you should NEVER query a table. You
> >should
> >> always query a view. These people are never phased by a request to
change
> >a
> >> column name or the order of columns in a table definition as it is as
> >trivial as
> >> dropping and recreating the view now.
> >>
> >> I might not go that far (but when asked to change a column name -- i
will
> >rename
> >> the table, create a view and grant on the view, no one ever knows).....
> >but it
> >> shows there is a difference of opinion out there.
> >>
> >> Views are a tool, a programming construct. Anyone who "outlaws" them
is
> >*wrong*
> >> and being very short sighted.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thomas Kyte (tkyte@us.oracle.com) http://asktom.oracle.com/
> >> Expert one on one Oracle, programming techniques and solutions for
Oracle.
> >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861004826/
> >> Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle Corp
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Thomas Kyte (tkyte@us.oracle.com) http://asktom.oracle.com/
> Expert one on one Oracle, programming techniques and solutions for Oracle.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861004826/
> Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle Corp
>
Received on Wed Oct 31 2001 - 14:36:52 CST