Re: Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000: Technical Comparison of the Features in the two databases

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:53:02 +0000, DA Morgan wrote:

>
> Thanks for the clarification though I did assume you were not bucking for a spot in the
> unemployment line.
>
> The main reason I will continue to lobby against autonumbering is that almost everyone
> will choose that initially because it is the easy out. Then when performance and
> scalability suffer they will either slow Oracle down to a SQL Server-like pace or they
> will have to redesign.
>
> We suffer enough from the dumbing down of people in many walks of life. Sequences are
> not more than a few keystrokes:
>
> CREATE SEQUENCE xyz;
>
> all other parameters being unnecessary
>
> AND sequence_name.NEXTVAL
>
> But they at least don't dumb down Oracle developers. If Oracle gets as brain-dead as
> Access it will find Access is a competitor.
>

Guess what?? I stress this is only a personal opinion, but it seems to me that what I call the "SQL Server Paradigm" is *exactly* what Oracle Corp. outlined as its way forward when it released 9i.

Seen the proliferation of "advisories" lately?? Now put an advisory together with a binary spfile, and one init.ora parameter, such as SELF_TUNE=TRUE, and you have SQL Serve...er, I mean Oracle 10.2i.

It wouldn't be hard to do.

I bet they do it.

But I know nothing more about it than you do, being merely the last to see what I'm expected to teach the next week.

You can call it the "Access Paradigm" if you prefer. Whatever: dumbing down it is, and it's the way of the future. (And for good commercial reasons: DBAs are expensive).

If I were a DBA today, I'd be checking out jobs for Web Administrators tomorrow. And brushing up on my XML.

Regards
HJR
> Daniel Morgan
Received on Wed Mar 12 2003 - 16:49:15 CST