Re: Check constraint violated

Ed Prochak <edprochak_at_adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<3EF27DF6.5090703_at_adelphia.net>...
> Billy Verreynne wrote:
> []
> >
> > Yeah maybe.. The grass always look greener on the other side.
> >
> > What really bugs me (and which is why I ranted at Ed), is that having Oracle
> > skills in development process is critical. Yet, the norm is still to treat
> > the database as a black box. Throw tables into it. Stir vigorously and
> > serve.
> >
> > The tables in the mix are not normalised. There is no physical db design.
> > They never heard of an IOT, bitmap index or any of the other tools in the
> > toolbox. But then when all problems are decreed to be nails, you only need
> > The Hammer from the toolbox. <sigh>
> >
> > --
> > Billy
>
> BTW, Billy,
>
> in my current job, I'm back using UNIFY. Man, was I spoiled with ORACLE's
> multiversioning! The biggest problem here seems to be locking! Never had to
> think about that in ORACLE (well in a few SELECT...FOR UPDATE statements on
> rare occasions).

Omigod, I've come unstuck in time!
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&th=bb576d594e3f8b61&rnum=2

>
> There is a lot that should be black box to some levels, you clearly see where.
> I do agree with you Billy (and take no offense at your rant earlier). Also a
> good design lends itself to easy enhancement in features and performance.
>
> I'll leave you with this thought:
> Sometimes you feel like whale shit at the bottom of the ocean,...
> and sometimes you don't feel that good!
>
> Enjoy. Maybe the point did get across to a few.
> A good design is worth fighting for.

I remember posting something like "Welcome to the world of referential integrity!" in the early V7 time frame in response to someones question, and in the V6 timeframe unify was ahead of oracle in that respect. Couldn't find google it though, maybe it was on Compuserve.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Maybe there is no usenet, and we are all dreaming the same dream.