| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL Server Yukon
Comments in-line.
Niall Litchfield wrote:
>Most of your comments are along the lines of ... but that feature isn't any
>help to me ... which is fair enough but Oracle having useless features for
>years isn't really a winning argument to me. Specific comments embedded.
>
Well .... uh ... ummm ... uhh ... yes.
>><snipped>
>>
>>If so then I submit that SQL, PL/SQL, SQLJ, Java, C, C++, Cobol,
>>Fortran, Perl, and
>>a plethora of scripting languages (PHP, KSH, etc.) is as close as I need
>>to be.
>>
>>
>
>I tend to agree - this probably does't surprise you - but if there is a case
>for having stored procedures written in java in the db, then probably the
>ability to write stored procedures in C#,VB,C++,J# (probably the most likely
>order that they would be used) would appear to be an improvement on the
>Oracle offering.
>
You are aware, I hope, that procedures and functions in Oracle can now
be compiled into C. The
fact that it isn't the Microsoft branded products is hardly an issue as
most Oracle is not run on a
Microsoft operating system.
>>>enhanced select TOP ....
>>>
>>>
>>I'd need a more complete description to respond.
>>
>>
>
>does Oracle offer select TOP .. at all? One of those easily worked around
>limitations that probably irritate a fair number of people trying to write
>db independent code - lets not go down the is this a good idea or not route.
>
Whenever I see TOP I thnk of the UNIX utility. Are you talking about
MAX? GREATEST? CEIL? Or
are you referring to the ability to grab the "top 5" that match some
criterion.
If the later ... there is no built-in function. But 10 seconds with an in-line view and it can easily be done.
>>>seperate date and time datatypes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Why? To what possible gain? Time bereft of date is almost always
>>meaningless.
>>
>>
>
>We have a report that we need to write on activity in working hours and out
>of working hours, we query on just the time part of the field. Again
>relatively easy but a nice to have feature
>
So use 01-JAN-1900. Ok I do get your point. But I'd argue that activites
can span days and that it
is the rare exception when that doesn't happen.
>>>try..catch in PL/SQL?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Explain.
>>
>>
>
>Create or replace longProcedure as
>..
>begin
>try
>query that might return no rows
>catch NO_DATA_FOUND
>....
>end try
>
>do some stuff
>try
>query that might throw a user defined exception but not normally
>NO_DATA_FOUND
>catch UDE
>...
>end try
>
>...
>EXCEPTION
>WHEN NO_DATA_FOUND
>... I have really had an error here.
>
>end ;
>/
>
>in other words if you expect certain errors in certain parts of code then
>deal with them there. Now personally i'd probably write that as
>Create or replace longProcedure as
>begin
>call subProc1
>call subProc2
>EXCEPTION
>end;
>
>etc
>
I would too as it would modularize my code, make development and testing
easier, allow for
code reuse, etc. But I do your CATCH stuff all the time like this:
BEGIN
BEGIN
... stuff
EXCEPTION
WHEN some_user_defined_exception THEN
... handle it
EXCEPTION
WHEN OTHERS THEN
... bail out gracefully
END;
/
>>Now I'm completely confused by what you are asking. Unfortunately that
>>didn't stop me from responding as best I could. ;-)
>>
>>
>
>My only point was that the OP stated that the article listed as new a whole
>bunch of features that Oracle had had 'for years' and yet when you got into
>specific features rather than marketing waffle a fair number of them seemed
>new both to mssql and to oracle. I have no problem arguing that oracle is a
>technically superior product - though I have issues with its pricing and
>marketing - but if we are going to do conparisons lets do them based on
>facts and not broad generalisations. One might as well look at the marketing
>for 10g and say 'ah but sqlserver has been easy to manage for years'.
>
>
>
You'd be correct. SQL Server has been easy to manage for years.
Partially one must admit
if one is honest because those that use it rarely have to meet the level
of demanding apps
that one routinely puts on top of Oracle. Just for one example, no one
would in their wildest
imagination have tried to host Amazon.com on SQL Server. I just finished
a project with a
small telephone company that pushed SQL Server to the point that it
croaked. We went to
Oracle and even without tuning handled 10X the throughput.
So if you have a half-way decent product but you never really push it
too hard you can
always get by without tuning because no one expects very much. Most of
what I've seen
done in SQL Server, put into Oracle or DB2 or Informix could also not
require much DBA
support because even a badly tuned database/instance would be adequate.
Is Oracle one of the most incompetent marketing organizations on the
planet for its size?
Absolutely. When a room full of industry professionals (my students) can
name a dozen or
more Microsoft products and still think Oracle is a one product company
Oracle's marketing
staff should be reduce to half-pay until they earn the rest of their
salary. Pricing wise ... its
going to change. Because if it doesn't Oracle's marketshare will erode.
That is the law. The
only way Oracle can continue its current pricing is not to offer more
candy on the CD. But
to make people aware of the fact that the candy exists and how to use
it. Something they
have failed at time and time again.
-- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)Received on Mon Oct 27 2003 - 11:50:28 CST
 |
 |