Re: 9i streams vs triggers

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:07:43 -0800, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote:

>Steve Jorgensen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:16:44 +0100, Sybrand Bakker
>> <gooiditweg_at_nospam.demon.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:06:43 -0600, "servant" <mjohns1_at_uhc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I have been tasked with developing a reporting architecture for an
>> >>application that has been developed over the last few months. I have been
>> >>told there are 2 main concerns: performance (contention) and complexity of
>> >>the data model. I am thinking of using Oracle's replication to maintain a
>> >>(near) real-time replica. That (basically) resolves the contention issue.
>> >>The complexity issue is more difficult.
>> >>
>> >>I am thinking about using 1) streams against the redo logs or 2) triggers to
>> >>pull the data from the replica, apply business logic to it, and populate a
>> >>"logical" data model on which reports can be generated. I would like to use
>> >>the same abstraction layer to go from the physical to the logical data model
>> >>as the application interface uses (Java objects with EJBs). In other words,
>> >>I need the code inside the streams or triggers to call Java methods (ie:
>> >>loadCustomerData(cust_id)) which would get the data and apply any business
>> >>logic and then populate the "logical" database.
>> >>
>> >>In essence, I think I am being asked to create a data warehouse, but I
>> >>haven't convinced myself of that yet.
>> >>
>> >>Anyway, here is my question: Does anyone have an opinion on which method
>> >>(streams or triggers) would tax my replica database more--from a CPU,
>> >>network, and/or contention perspective? Any opinions from other
>> >>perspectives which option is better (maintenance, etc).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >First of all I would like to question the need of a replica database
>> >for reporting purposes. As for contention, this is simply not an
>> >issue, if the application has been designed properly. Your post has a
>> >distinct smell of finding a 'hardware solution' read 'workaround' for
>> >what is in reality a software design problem.
>>
>> That's odd because everything I've read, including a book specifically
>> on Oracle DBA suggests the schema designs and optimal database
>> configurations for real-time and analysis are diametrically opposed,
>> so you always have to choose either a compromise between the 2 or use
>> separate databases and servers.
>
>Just a note for the odd person that gets a stern response from us such as 'RTFM'
>and reacts negatively.
>
>Take note of how we have reacted to servant's request for help.
>
>Try to figure out why we are being so helpful here and not in other cases.
>
>We have repeated this many times but it bears repeating again. We gladly jump in
>and help those who don't come to us with an attitude that they have 10+ years of
>experience blah blah blah but rather help those who are willing to dig in and
>read, learn, and help themselves.

Well, I'm not sure if you're reacting to me or the original poster. I was just curious that you seemed to be making a point that was different from what I've been led to believe. I thought someone might clarify a bit. Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 16:14:27 CST