Re: Remote view - who should create it? - discussion point!

"Paul Brewer" <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote in message news:<3c61ae56$1_3_at_mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...
> Paul,
>
> Well, you and the 'chap who "owns" the remote database' both have my
> sympathy.
> Who is the supplier?
> I find it difficult to understand how creating a view can damage the
> database.
> Are the suppliers aware that a view is no more than a stored select
> statement?
> Do the suppliers claim that it also voids the warranty to join tables in an
> ad-hoc select statement?
> Trying hard to remain polite...Nuno, help me out here!
>
> Paul
>
> "Paul Smith" <smithp_at_ntlworld.com.notreally> wrote in message
> news:3c61860e.1264608_at_news.ntlworld.com...
> > Thanks for the responses - it transpires that the chap who "owns" the
> remote
> > database is tied by warranty clauses set by the supplier of the database
> he
> > supposedly owns. Adding anything to the schema voids the warranty! That's
> why I
> > can't add the view at his end.
> >
> > I have done some investigations of my own and I'm pretty sure that a lot
> of data
> > comes back from the remote machine even though the final result is only a
> > handful of rows. I use up to 18Mb of temp space whilst the query is
> running, and
> > it only returns 170 rows of 3 columns!
> >
> > My only solution unfortunately seems to be to provide an additional
> datafile for
> > the temp segment to use. Ho hum.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Smith

How is the warranty worded?

If the warranty says you can't add anything to the _schema_ (rather than database), perhaps you could talk the remote database owner into creating the view in a separate schema in the same instance.

That would give you the view on the remote database and let the guy keep on the "right" side of his warranty.

Just a thought.

Steve Mundie Received on Thu Feb 07 2002 - 04:24:16 CST