Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

On 30 Aug 2004 14:59:06 -0500, Galen Boyer <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, hjr_at_dizwell.com wrote:
>
>> I'll tell you what. If you disagree with me technically, stick
>> to a technical discussion. We can have a meaningful debate
>> about whether column names should be long and descriptive or
>> not.
>
>Please tell me how it is good database design that column names
>should be abbreviated, especially to < 5 characters? For me, it
>is not Oracle's job to tell me how long my column names should
>be, and it is annoying that they think they do. Maybe I want it
>both/multiple ways? Maybe I have 5 character table names and
>then I create a view with medium abbreviated column names and one
>with long column names, each catering to a particular audience.
>
>And God knows, how many times is an answer on these newsgroups
>something akin to, "Well, it isn't Oracle's fault if you have
>faulty design, so don't go blaming the functionality when you
>implemented it poorly." I've read numerous answers from you of
>this flavor. Feel free to argue the good or bad of the design,
>but I'll have a hard time believing that limiting the number of
>characters is a data-modeling "blessing" brought to me by Larry.
>
>It looks like they made a decision long ago, which at the time
>might have been a fine one, but today is an annoyance, at best.

Apparently you still don't realise how tables are implemented on a technical level. How do you compensate for a bigger row directory? Any answer to this?
And yes, I definitely agree with Howard, you are overreacting. I also don't agree with you it is an annoyance. If you really think it is an annoyance, why don't you switch to a 'better' product, or -better still- file an enhancement request with Oracle. This is not the place to start flaming about the techical decsisions Oracle made in the past. And your contribution definitely qualifies as flame.

--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA