Re: Oracle vs. Sybase

A new voice in the wilderness...

Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_acay.com.au> wrote in article <33AFD917.100A_at_acay.com.au>...
[snipping over flame/flame response... ]
> 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...

They were the same product up until about 3 or 4 years ago. They are still VERY similar though diverging. At the core they're still close enough to be talked of as of the same family.

> 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.

[snip]

Serious question: I'm an old sybase dba and have recently been handed an Oracle project. I was planning on using a lot of pl/sql, but I'm wondering what the down side is. The above seems to imply that pl/sql is a thing to be avoided. Maybe it's my Sybase background but I figured stored procs to be a GOOD thing. At the very least it localizes the business rules and cuts out some of the compiling the server has to do. Isn't that true in Oracle?

[snip... what's wrong with Sybase question]
> 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;

Actually you can change the default block size in Sybase. Most people don't and it's not talked of, but some implementations of Sybase (Stratus for example) use different block sizes.

> 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)?

This one I may have to give you, assuming Oracle gets around the nested inner and outer join issue.

> 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;
 [snip]
> 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"...

Here I have to say you're wrong. Sybase had between from the beginning. In fact it's essential for one of it's fundamental system tables. It's been there for at least the 9-10 years I've worked with Sybase. Received on Tue Jun 24 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT