Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

From: Galen Boyer <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com>
Date: 30 Aug 2004 08:19:11 -0500
Message-ID: <u8ybwkbnj.fsf@standardandpoors.com>

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, hjr_at_dizwell.com wrote:
> C Stabri wrote:
>

>> I am trying to get some tables out of SQL Server 2000 and into
>> Oracle 9i. However I am encountering problems.
>> 
>> 1. Many of the tables and column names in SQL server are >
>> than 30 Characters which meansa any auto inport I do fails.
>> Is there a way to get around this.

>
> Yup. Open the relevant table in SQL Server, and start editing
> the column names.
>
> I'm sure you will tell me there's a perfectly good reason why
> your column names are so ridiculously long. But I won't believe
> it, so don't.

Here's an attribute name:

  financial information submission failure penalty

This is spec'd out by the business I'm the datamodeler for, but I guess I'm in a ridiculous business, just like the OP cause my database doesn't support that name? I abbreviated it to, finclinfsubmfailpnlty. I kind of think the fully spelled out version is easier to understand.

Howard,

For the first time in my years reading this board, I feel like I'm reading a posting from the soapbox of Daniel Morgan. The truth is that the <= 30 limit is just that, a limitation. It makes one come up with, to use your adjective, "ridiculous"ly difficult to understand abbreviations. Its a limitation and there is nothing but drinking the Oracle coolaid which makes one try to argue differently. That is why I don't understand your posting. You definitely don't drink the Oracle coolaid, but for some reason here, you try to defend the limitation as though it somehow helps the datamodeler by requiring him to come up with names <= 30.

Oracle has limitations that are annoying. This is one of them.

-- 
Galen Boyer

Received on Mon Aug 30 2004 - 08:19:11 CDT