Re: Very long "WHERE" list.

On 2004-07-10, Mikito Harakiri <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote:
>
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1089417913.117742_at_yasure...
>> Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>> > "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:1089413739.39227_at_yasure...

[deletia]
>> When you get into a car do you expect the car to tell you that you are
>> too drunk to drive?
>>
>> If you walked into a hospital surgical theatre would you expect the
>> scalpel to tell you that you are wholly unqualified to be a surgeon?
>>
>> Why is it the databases responsibility to tell you that you don't
>> understand how to design and implement a relational design?
>>
>> Why is it Oracle's responsibility to tell you that you should be
>> flipping burgers not bytes?
>
> I don't understand. Did you switch sides, or is there some sarcasm that I'm
> missing?
>
> Plain and simple. Oracle responsibility is to implement what users want. It
> appears that they want long in-list. Now, please enlighten me why list of 1,
> 10, and 100 elements is OK, but list of 1000 elements is not?

What made you think that any of us would approve of a 100 member in-list?

Even if you can trust Oracle to efficiently generate a sane execution plan for such queries, you're still left with the sort of random clutter that arbitrary in-lists leave behind.

[deletia]

You're unecessarily generating a boundary condition within Oracle.

-- 
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. 

        They brought us the email virus.
                                                     
	In my Atari days, such a notion would have             |||
	been considered a complete absurdity.                 / | \