Buzzword, how about mantra.... I work at a 3rd Party vendor where
Database Independence is core concept and there isn't a single project
here that includes performance as a bullet point. In my world
databases are irrelevant. Applications Architects could care less
about the database here.
On Aug 23, 2:26 pm, sybra..._at_hccnet.nl wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:05:32 -0700, Helma <bad_elef..._at_hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >.PS-Sybrand: If ANSI SQL needs to be replaced by special purpose
> >.proprietary features in order to get _equivalent_ performance that
> >IMHO
> >.is a problem. It means that a product doesn't perform without
> >"tricks" .
>
> Actually Oracle has always conformed to ANSI-SQL though to a lower
> level of the standard.
> They should have implemented SQL92 in RBO, but they would have had to
> rewrite RBO from scratch.
>
> >If i may respond to this -
>
> >Being 'database-independent' used to be a buzz word around 10 years
> >ago. Reasons came from marketing: Merging companies with different
> >RDBMS could easily go together if they are database-independent. It's
> >easier to negotiate with your RDBMS vendor if you have an exit option
> >etc etc. Some products ( like the 4Gl app builder Uniface) had this DB-
> >independence as a central theme : application code was the same, just
> >a use of a different databasedriver and the application could use an
> >other RDBMS.
>
> Actually it still is a buzzword. I am currently coping with an
> application supporting both Oracle and Sqlserver, which shall rename
> nameless. Oracle is primarily used as a flat file system, no Oracle
> feature is being used.
>
>
>
> >Needless to say, Uniface couldn't use these nifty 'proprietary
> >features' of a database. For example, one of such oracle features was
> >the SEQUENCES . With uniface , every technical keyvalue needed to be
> >retrieved and stored in a databasetable, creating a hotspot when users
> >and loadprocesses needed a new primarykeynumber. Compare that to the
> >cached sequences of Oracle. I'm sure that there are more or better
> >examples of this DBindependence approach.
>
> Sqlserver doesn't support sequences. Consequently aforementioned
> vendor implemented a 'sequence table'. We did away with that in 1989
> when Oracle 6 was introduced.
>
> >H.
> >ps :
>
> >Isn't mySQL just a front end for a storage engine.
> >Unless I'm mistaken the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the storage
> >engine contribute a lot to the performance.
>
> >In my experience, the capabilities of the programmer contribute most
> >to the performance (or lack thereof) of the storage engine. ;-)
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA
Received on Mon Aug 27 2007 - 12:36:33 CDT
