On Apr 9, 2:35 pm, "joel garry" <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:36 am, Mladen Gogala <mgogala.SPAM_ME...._at_verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:19:22 -0700, EscVector wrote:
> > > That said, the environments are Alpha/Prototype environments, so giving
> > > access and helping out is just good PR especially when some of the
> > > worlds top java devs don't believe they need DBAs. They're database
> > > independent....
>
> > I've recently encountered an idiot giving a horrible advice how to make
> > Oracle behave like SQL Server. I've fought people trying to create
> > "database independent" applications all my life. Different databases have
> > different locking strategies, different way of dealing with connections
> > and different optimizers, not to mention different security mechanisms.
> > In my life, I've dealt with Oracle, PgSQL, CICS/DL1 and Informix, not
> > much but enough to know that all the databases are different, they're all
> > individuals, as stated in the "Life of Brian". When the vendor tells me
> > that his application is portable, I usually ask for the way that this
> > portability is achieved. If the answer is "Hibernate and WebLogic", I
> > advise the CIO against the application and explain him the risks. The
> > only type of database independence I have nothing against is so called
> > ifdef portability, named after the #ifdef pre-processor in CPP. I have
> > never seen a database independent application beat database specific
> > application on a performance benchmark.
>
> Actually, I have. The performance benchmark measured being
> productivity.
>
> I can pretty much guarantee you can't write an ERP package with all of
> the bells and whistles faster and cheaper than I can bring up a
> "database independent" COTS. Vaporware fails any performance
> benchmark, of course.
>
> I agree with you on the technical issues, but the users don't give a
> flying squirrels tail about that. They care about whether the
> application can fit into their business. If the vendor provides
> easily modified source code and costs a tenth of Oracle apps, there's
> some strong motivation there too.
>
> Another thing I've seen that isn't just playing with semantics: Apps
> custom built on 9iAS slower than COTS built with OCI. You may recall
> before 10g the typical way to configure involved having the database
> separate from the, say, Portal (so you can say WOW! n-tier!), with a
> bunch of synonyms and network access necessary to actually get any
> data. Meanwhile, the n-tier COTS would typically be built with the
> broker and db tiers on the same box, again with OCI to get to the db,
> just way faster. I've been quite surprised at times at how well
> certain db independent apps actually perform - the translation of fair
> and proper benchmarks to the real world is problematic. Of course,
> I'm working with OLTP apps, I can certainly see how newfangled things
> beyond O7 could use newer features that would make a difference. On
> the other hand, I'm also watching someone install a SQL-Server based
> BI that sucks from the O db, because all the Oracle BI stuff is
> currently in, umm, transition (and is still an order of magnitude more
> expensive - or more). He was impressed by Mark Rittman's blog when I
> sent him a link, though.
>
> Of course, this means I wind up doing stupid things like implementing
> a custom security system on top of logins that are hardly different
> than keeping the password the same as the username, but there you go.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> "You do have a really nice ass, but, you know how the camera adds 10
> pounds, and well, you had like 5 cameras on you... Ow!" - heard on
> radio.
But OCI is not database independent. The independence I'm talking
about is passing ANSI SQL...
Received on Mon Apr 09 2007 - 16:01:11 CDT
