Re: Oracle 10g - Diminishing DBA roles ...

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:40:11 +1000
Message-Id: <414b4ba7$0$20127$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Dick wrote:

> Niall Litchfield wrote:
> 

>> Comments embedded
>> "Dick" <urdick2000_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:%Nj2d.11253$yp2.6544_at_newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>>

>>>Richard,
>>>       The  latest "move"  from Oracle Corp is to transform   Oracle, so
>>>that it looks like  MS SQL server.  I have seen every one playing wih
>>>MS-SQL and creating databases with one mouse click.

>>
>>
>> We use both Oracle and MSSQL at my place of work - and, somewhat
>> unusually, I believe that both are excellent products.
>> Oracle however does not in any sense look like sql server, and Oracle
>> aren't doing much to make it look like that at all. I can only assume
>> that you are referring to the various manageability enhancements in
>> 9i/10g. lets try a few
>>
>> The various cache advice views - sql server doesn't have them, the cache
>> architecture is different.
>> ASSM - nope not there.
>> ASM - noticeably absent.
>>
>> Or perhaps you intended to refer to performance.
>>
>> function based indexes - nope.
>> session history (limited though it is) - missing.
>> a wait interface - nope, not really (there are bits)
>> bitmap indexes - nope.
>> session tracing from sql - just about with the interface from hell.
>> writers don't block readers and vice versa - sql 2005.
>>
>> How about availability enhancements
>> flashback - not there.
>> logical standby - missing.
>> log mining - nope.
>>
>> admittedly you don't have to worry about sizing extents appropriately in
>> either product now....
>>

> Niall,
>       Did these features stop someone from using MS-SQL?  All these new
> Oracle features, How many of them are really used ?

Taking them one at a time:

ASSM - Hopeless
ASM - Brilliant. No more worrying about I/O bottlenecks ASSM *and* ASM together - Really quite a good idea Function Based Indexes - Brilliant. How else can I do case insensitivity without clobbering my database with full table scans? Wait Interface - Brilliant. You can't tune without it. Bitmap Indexes - Extraordinarily brilliant in the right circumstances (ie, No DML). Billions of records selected against for multiple different conditions, and the answer pops out in seconds. Writers don't block readers - Rather like Oxygen, we wouldn't be here without it.
Flashback - Superb. One of the main reasons for upgrading to 9i. No more incomplete recoveries due to user stuff-ups. Logical Standby - Finally! At last! Brilliant! (when the bugs have gone). A disaster recovery mechanism that isn't just a lot of expensive hardware sitting idly by, waiting for an asteroid strike. This expensive hardware is actually usable.
Log Mining - Brilliant. Auditing, diagnostics, and a recovery mechanism in one... things don't get much better than this. Cache Advice views - Hmmmmmm... OK. Not my cup of tea.

So, most of them are really quite extraordinarily useful. And if you aren't using them, you ought to be asking yourself why ("The application doesn't need them" is a valid answer, but rather suggests your application is a bit long in the tooth).

I would mortgage my cat to upgrade to 9i for Flashback alone. I would seek offers for my goldfish to upgrade to 10g for ASM alone.

> For that matter, How
> many DBAs really understand those?

100% of them do. Because anyone who doesn't understand them isn't actually a DBA. A junior DBA, perhaps. A 'thinking about it and maybe one day' DBA. But no, they're not a DBA as such.

> Even if somebody does( Docs,
> Training, Google Search...), Do they really know how to use it ?

Of course. Because real DBAs have PCs at home where they test and research and work things out. So even if their particular work requirements mean they don't get to implement something in real-life practice, they're ready for the day when business requirements change.

> 
> Concerned Oracle DBA..
> Dick

Received on Fri Sep 17 2004 - 15:40:11 CDT