Re: Another angle on this....

"damorgan" <dan.morgan_at_ci.seattle.wa.us> wrote in message news:3C72A014.C8DCFDDC_at_ci.seattle.wa.us...
> 1. Defending the indefensible? Bug? Let me quote you from page 38 of Tom
Kyte's book expert one-on-one
> Oracle.
>
> "The developer doing the conversion (from TransactSQL to Oracle) was
complaining that the SQL queries in
> Oracle returned the 'wrong' answer. The goal here was to find al of the
rows in T where X was Null if
> some condition was not met or where x equaled a specific value if some
condition was met.
>
> The complaint was that, in Oracle, this query would return no data hen
L_SOME_VARIABLE was not set to a
> specific value (when it was left as Null). In Sybase and SQL Server, this
was not the case - the query
> would find the rows where X was set to a Null value. I see this on almost
every conversion from Sybase
> or SQL Server to Oracle. SQL is supposed to operate under tri-valued logic
and Oracle implements Null
> values the way ANSI SQL requires them to be implemented. Under those
rules, comparing x to Null is
> neither True or False - it is, in fact, unknown."
>
> So if complying with ANSI SQL is an indefensible bug I'll stand in for
Larry Ellison. >>Fire when ready!
Straw man again.... You do like them. I hope you didn't pay much for that book.<G>
I'm not complaining about Oracle returning no rows from comparisons with Null value fields. Nor am I complaining that I can't have Nulls in unique keys. No db that I am aware of returns rows from null comparisons and the reference above to SQL Server doing it is mistaken. It definitely doesn't. Reading the snippet Tom Kyte has missed the point (deliberately?). He didn't notice that all other db platforms actually distinguish between blank and null (correctly). Presumably he is some Oracle high-priest and I'll now be burnt at the stake for heresy.

To repeat; I am complaining that Oracle turns blank strings into Nulls. That is the indefensible behaviour. All of the rest is collateral damage resulting from the fact that Oracle doesn't appear to understand that "" is a valid value for a string field distinct from NULL. Lets put it another way, would you still defend Oracle if integer zeroes were considered as nulls and failed to match any query predicate other than "is null" and integer zeroes couldn't be in a key and appeared last in sorted lists etc. Come on.

You and Tom Kyte are in a hole thats so deep I can't see either of you any more, just the frenzied earth flying out the top. Stop Digging.
> ----------------------------------------------
> 2. BFD = Big ..... Deal

Thank you, I'll remember that.
However, its a big deal for me when porting a large app from another platform. Did the developer who implemented quoted identifiers really think that users would want to distinguish between columns named "Comment" and "COMMENT" and "cOMMENT" and "CoMMENT"......? Not useful
> ----------------------------------------------
> 3. I've been using identity columns for years.
> What difference can't be implemented in 29 keystrokes?
> Be specific.

See my boring and pointlessly detailed rebuttal in another thread.
> ----------------------------------------------
> 4. Creating an index is a pain? Really? No doubt you'll never touch C or
Java.
My main development is done entirely in C++. Its only a minor pain.
> ----------------------------------------------
> 5. Had you given an example I'd gladly comment. But, like CASE, I suspect
> you are expressing more your lack of knowledge of Oracle rather than any
> inability of Oracle to perform some function.
Try decode (fieldvalue>4,0,otherfieldvalue,0) As it happens, most of my gripe about this goes away as I can use CASE when fieldvalue>4 then 0 else otherfieldvalue END
> ----------------------------------------------
> 6. Didn't appear in 9i. I use it in 8i.
> You stand doubly corrected.

Another Oracle user has told me that their documentation for 8i does not mention it either. Out of interest, could you definitely create views using CASE in 8i using PL/SQL? Thats what I wanted to do and failed for some reason. Probably incompetence.
> ----------------------------------------------
> 8. No one uses Oracle "out of the box" any more than one builds a house
with 2x4s.
> Nails and carpentry are required. The advantages come with a cost. The
cost of
> having to do real work and reading the manuals.
I've been pampered, the other db manufacturers built my house for me, its a bummer to have to build my own. <G>
So, optimised ODBC routines only managing to return 2.5% of the performance of 4 other platforms (out of the box performance) is acceptable performance for Oracle out of the box, cos "no-one uses it that way". As a clueless whining stranger to the real work that you are familiar with any guesses at how long it'll take me to solve this one? I need to know how long I'll be doing real work and when I can revert to my normal slothful condition. <G> However there is a serious point here. The performance of multi-record retrieval is dreadful (despite terrific performance in returning the *first* row even of complex queries). I accept that its my responsibility to sort it out, and Oracle is very tunable etc etc etc , but I have no idea how much work I'll have to do, and how much knowledge I'll have to acquire to fix it. The commitment is completely open ended as no-one has even given the vaguest hint as to what the nature of the problem might be and where I should start looking other than to recommend that I start reading some weighty tomes.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Finally: I'm not upset. It takes a lot more than the usenet to upset me.
Then why do so many of your posts in these groups come across as upset put-downs?
>
> But you don't see Oracle developers in the SQL Server usenet groups
complaining about the lack of
> multiversioning and the fact that row level locks are a finite resource do
you?
Of course you don't, they're all too busy doing "real work" trying to get usable performance out of the shipped version of Oracle <G>. Meanwhile all the SQL Server/DB2/Sybase bunnies whose apps are just singing along without tuning so they've got no work to do come in here and post specifically to wind you up. Its that or yet another game of Hearts. ;) Seriously, because Oracle *is* a higher pitched and more advanced product than SQL Server there probably aren't as many people trying to do the port in that direction. You can bet your life that if there were, and they needed those features, they'd let the NG know about it.
>
> I am just tired of what I perceive to be the kind of whining I would
expect from a toddler coming from
> people that think that whatever they know is better than what they don't
know. That are reluctant to
> learn new things. That think change is bad. And post in the Oracle usenet
groups, day after day, week
> after week, the same nonsense. Software is just a tool not a religion. At
Boeing they don't put
> airplanes together with hammers. And my house was not built with a rivet
gun.
Another straw man. I've ported my app to 5 different db platforms. I love learning new things. I approached Oracle with excitement. However, it is a fact that despite Oracle's many nice features, most of which are unfortunately of little use to me because I develop cross-platform, the Oracle port was considerably more painful than all of the others put together, by a long margin.

Its not me who has a religious attitude to one particular technology. Pots and Black Kettles I think.....

> ----------------------------------------------
> Daniel Morgan
>
>
>
> Tom McClelland wrote:
>
> > damorgan <dan.morgan_at_ci.seattle.wa.us> wrote in message
news:<3C7144EB.7CA04F3A_at_ci.seattle.wa.us>...
> > > My comments, barbs, interspersed below.
> > >
> > > Daniel Morgan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom McClelland wrote:
> > >
> > > > Your points are valid, I don't contest them. However as someone
coming
> > > > from SQL Server to Oracle I have faced the following significant (to
> > > > me) irritations:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Empty strings turned into nulls. Empty strings per se are not
> > > > supported
> > >
> > > What's your point? Those going from Oracle to SQL Server can complain
> > > about the exact opposite.
> > No they can't, those going from SQL Server to Oracle acquire the
> > remarkable ability to distinguish between blank values and unknown
> > values. They aren't required to use it. To me there is a big
> > difference between someone not having a middle name and someone's
> > middle name being unknown.
> > > So they are different ... so what? Did you think
> > This is not merely a difference. It is a bug in the way Oracle treats
> > blank strings. I don't understand how you can defend it. I can't
> > include a blank field in a primary key, ever, in Oracle. I can't get
> > sensible results from select * from table where field>"". You are
> > defending the indefensible in your zeal to consider Oracle equal or
> > superior in every way.
> > > Oracle was SQL Server with another company name on the CD? Do you
think
> > > that everything Microsoft does is the "standard" to which everyone
else
> > > must adhere?
> > No, there are lots of things that I like better about Oracle, and lots
> > of inadequacies in SQL Server.
> > > Do you think that because you learned SQL Server first
> > > somehow that makes it better?
> > No. You are wrong. I didn't learn SQL Server first (though I did learn
> > it before Oracle), and I don't think that it is better in every
> > situation.
> > > Good grief. If I followed that logic I'd be
> > > whining about things being different than they were in Fortran IV.
> > You are fighting a straw man with this one. You've set me up as
> > someone who thinks a particular way, and then you are knocking that
> > way of thinking over. Nothing to do with me.
> >
> > > >
> > > > 2. Quoted identifiers are case sensitive, just what you need...
> > >
> > > BFD
> > You'll have to explain that one to me.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. No support for identity columns, instead requiring programmers to
> > > > create sequences and triggers to achieve effects that are trivial in
> > > > other databases
> > >
> > > Implementing a seqence takes 29 keystrokes. Count them ... 29 to
create
> > > the sequence and add it to an insert statement. This is a lot of
whining
> > > over 29 keystrokes.
> > It takes a lot more than that to duplicate the full functionality of
> > an identity column. You need to study the difference more closely.
> >
> > > But go the other way ... I'd like to see you make your
> > > identity column count backwards by every third number and reset itself
> > > after every 300 inserts.
> > But I've never needed to do anything like that in 20 years. I just
> > want column identities. Its a common requirement, sensibly supplied by
> > all other platforms that I've used.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 4. No option to ignore case on indexes or character-string
comparison
> > >
> > > BFD. It is that bloody painful to type UPPER()?
> > Of course not, but for it to be efficient you also have to create the
> > upper case functional index too. These little details add to the pain
> > of porting generic code. I need to go through all my code looking for
> > places where this may be necessary.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 5. No support for comparison operators in arithmetic expressions
> > >
> > > I'm not clear on what you mean by comparison operators. But I strongly
> > > suspect you are otally incorrect.
> > How do you suspect that I'm incorrect when you don't know what I'm
> > talking about? What do you think it can do? Look at the definition of
> > expressions in the BN diagrams, and you'll see the difference between
> > the expressions permitted for comparisons and the expressions
> > permitted for arithmetic operations. (unless of course like CASE this
> > has been added, in which case I apologise)
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 6. No support for "Case" notation
> > >
> > > Wrong! I use CASE WHEN in much of what I write. Try RTFM.
> > I stand corrected. I didn't notice that this had appeared in 9i, due
> > to my stupid inability to find the 9i manual pages on Oracle's website
> > (thank you DStevens for the URL). I am also told that it works in at
> > least some versions of 8i despite not apparently appearing in the
> > documentation. Curious.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 7. Bugs in the ODBC driver which (in my case) make CLOBS unusable,
so
> > > > I have to rely on varchar2(4000)
> > >
> > > Try an ODBC driver from another company.
> > Which one do you recommend? It's Oracle's ODBC driver that I am using.
> > I've got 2 CLOB bugs.
> > >
> > > > 8. Out-of-the-box retrieval of multi-record datasets at 1/40 the
speed
> > > > of SQL Server in my (highly optimised) ODBC usage (SQLBindCol,
> > > > multi-record Chunked retrievals, etc)
> > >
> > > Then you don't have a clue what you are doing.
> > That told me, I'm an idiot. So sorry for troubling you.
> >
> > I said, "Out of the box". My routines retrieve records at around
> > 4000/second on 4 other platforms as they install out of the box
> > (MSSQL,Sybase,MSAccess(!), and DB2), and around 100/second on Oracle.
> > I am sure I am doing something very wrong, but despite posting
> > detailed expositions of this problem in these forums no-one has
> > managed to suggest what it might be beyond suggesting that I read
> > books on tuning Oracle, in order to achieve the same performance that
> > I get for free in 4 rival technologies.
> > >
> > > > I know that there are work-arounds for some of these "features". And
I
> > > > understand that Oracle is a great tool for those wanting to store
vast
> > > > quantities of data. A competitor to SQL Server for those just
wanting
> > > > to store a few million records and have a thousands of transactions
> > > > per day, with less than 50 permanent users, it ain't, IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > Ducks back into large concrete bunker and dons flameproof suit <G>
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > >
> > > What your list clearly indicates to me is that you are totally
clueless as
> > > to what Oracle is.
> > Its not a database then? Damn.
> >
> > > Let me give you the reverse complaint list. One for
> > > which there is no work-around in SQL Server.
> > >
> > > 1. No multiversioning.
> > Sadly in my ignorance I don't know what this is. In my other platforms
> > I am presumably suffering because of its absence. You didn't name lots
> > of other great features of Oracle, that I would love if it were the
> > *only* platform that I were trying to develop against, eg materialised
> > views, the ability to use a sub query where a table-name goes in a
> > query without building a view first, function-based indexes, and many
> > others. Lots of great features don't make a product perfect however,
> > and my experience of porting to Oracle has been around 100 times more
> > painful than the other ports of my product that I've done.
> > >
> > > Didn't need any others. That one is more than enough. When you figure
out
> > > how to code around that in TransactSQL let Bill Gates know.
> > Why should I, I don't like Microsoft particularly above Oracle.
> > >
> > > BTW: When the developer of the Jet engine left Microsoft and started
his
> > > own company two or three years back his database platform of choice
was
> > > Oracle on Linux. I guess he didn't know as much about it as you.
> > >
> > > Daniel Morgan
> >
> > Daniel, what's your problem? You seem very upset and defensive that I
> > don't love Oracle as much as you do. Do you not think that at least
> > some of my complaints could be legitimate criticisms?
>
Received on Wed Feb 20 2002 - 06:03:13 CST