Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Where is Oracle’s Grid ?

Re: Where is Oracle’s Grid ?

From: Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: 31 Dec 2003 14:42:37 -0800
Message-ID: <91884734.0312311442.2de5e212@posting.google.com>


Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1072810464.715634_at_yasure>...
> Noons wrote:
>
> > "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1072796803.85192_at_yasure...
> >
> >>And if it doesn't how can the database tools be used to tune it?
> >
> > Very simply: if the SQL can be found in the SGA and I can dynamically
> > tune it like 10g allows me to (the actual mechanism is irrelevant here),
> > then the toolset that 10g is providing me with allows me to tune very
> > bad SQL. Which is what I want to do.
>
> Then it is possible 10g will help. Provided, and it is a big "provided"
> the vendors don't refuse support if you upgrade.
>
> >>How many no. But how badly yes. Do you think a database engine should be
> >>able to tune a Cartesian join?
> >
> > If the CBO forces a CJ when one wasn't needed, then I should be able to
> > change it back to something the db can deal with.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The CBO does this CJ
> > replacement often enough when join columns are of different data types, as
> > you likely are aware of.
>
> I was referring to the garbage code written into many of these
> third-party product's front-ends.
>
> > Of course, if the statement was coded initially as a CJ and nothing I
> > do in tuning can change that (missing join conditions), then my only
> > resort is to go back to the 3rd-party maker and get them to send me a patch.
>
> Granted my example was extreme. But I've looked at a lot of what is
> generated in these product's front-ends and it is horrible.
>
> > Guess which type of app is developed nowadays? How relevant is RAC gonna
> > be for them? Any wonder why RAC's been received with lukewarm enthusiasm
> > from the 3rd-party users?
>
> I'd guess because most products are not using TAF and not trapping
> commits and not written by people that understand how to write for
> fail-over. It is absolutely Oracle's fault that this includes Oracle
> Forms, Reports, and Apps. It is not their fault that other vendors
> similarly have refused to rewrite their code for fail-over.
>
> > Same goes for all the other stuff. It's not the features, it's how well
> > they fit the existing market. The production DBAs can do nothing with them
> > if they are essentially useless in their environment. No matter how much
> > they might be interested in using them.
>
> Provided one insists on purchasing garbage from vendors that don't
> leverage these abilities. One of the reasons for Amazon's success is
> that they have written all of their own apps and all of their own APIs.
> It is the difference between good management and bad.
>
> >>Then if you didn't know this before let me be the first to tell you. The
> >>products we are talking about are full of lead ingots. I've seen their
> >>internals. They were written by people that know nothing about PL/SQL
> >>or, if they did, forgot it when the coded these product lines.
> >
> > They were essentially COBOL-mainframe products that were "ported" to other
> > environments by a bunch of ignoramus idiots with NO IDEA whatsoever how
> > to spell UNIX, let alone Oracle or PL/SQL or anything else. As for their
> > knowledge of SQL, it was mostly based on very old versions of mainframe
> > DB2 and that defines it all. Yes, I know EXACTLY what you're talking about.
> > I even know the calibre of the people supporting one of those in Australia.
> > From a long time ago...
>
> Exactly. So what's Oracle supposed to do? Send the software police to
> lock up incompetent developers? How about managers that buy
> projector-ware rather than listending to their own DBAs?
>
> > Don't need to. All I want is to be able to tune the SQL when I find
> > a moronic one or one that the CBO has taken to a moronic level.
> > Without having to change the source code. That is only possible in 10g.
> > That's what should have been there ages ago and was asked for ages ago.
> > That's what the previous stuff is essentially useless for.
>
> Now I understand what you want. Hmmmm. I think it would be far easier to
> just buy good software in the first place ... or write it yourself.

Well, even the gummint figured out years ago that writing it yourself is way expensive. Hence the COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) initiative. So that's why they buy those crappy packages that places like Boeing have used for years, because when you get into large inventory/MRP/whatever enterprise sized collections of software, "good" is defined in applications functionality, not technical whiz-bang. DBA's wouldn't even know what to tell them to get. These things take years to get working right, and writing them from scratch is a losing proposition, as exemplified by so many gummint-sized implementation failures (not to mention so many examples of commercial failure - "paperless office" anyone? Would Apps be considered a success, or a failure? :-).

Saying "just buy good software" is ridiculous, there simply isn't any such thing. Saying "write it yourself, look at Amazon" is a little more subtly ridiculous, as it ignores the timing of the dotcom madness in relation to their capital investment needs. Software houses with a small staff can come up with some excellent stuff, but the scale is all wrong (or even if it can scale, there is no efficient mechanism to sell it to decision makers). The only answer is to explicitly recognize that the length of software life cycles requires long term stable software to base applications upon. This is in conflict with the reality of quarterly-biased financial results in the capital markets.

Put another way, Larry is better off hacking up Peoplesoft than taking responsibility for bad Forms, Reports and Apps.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.01/internet.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
Received on Wed Dec 31 2003 - 16:42:37 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US