Re: recent drivel posted by Tony Rogerson on his blog

From: Brian Peasland <dba_at_nospam.peasland.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:21:26 -0500
Message-ID: <47027227$0$26508$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>

DA Morgan wrote:
> Brian Peasland wrote:

>>> Search is only useful if you know the correct terminolgy to search on.
>>
>> Agreed, which is why your example really isn't good because the game 
>> can be played both ways....
>>
>>> Take an example, in SQL Server we have what's called 'Common Table 
>>> Expression'; searching for that on the oracle help does not yeild 
>>> anything similar in oracle yet I know there is something, so, what I 
>>> need is a full scrollable index of topics so I can find what I'm 
>>> looking for.
>>
>> Now look for Shared Pool or System Global Area in Books Online...can't 
>> find it. SQL Server has memory structures which perform somewhat 
>> similar actions, but you won't find these in BOL.
>>
>> Or look for "blocks" in BOL. You'll come up with "Understanding and 
>> Avoiding Blocking", "Using BEGIN...END", "Customizing the Lock 
>> Time-out", deadlocking, and "Troubleshooting Locking" (at least this 
>> is what I found in BOL for SQL 2000). Nowhere in here is that "blocks" 
>> in Oracle-speak is "pages" in SQL Server-speak. A fully scrollable 
>> index of topics is not going to help me make that terminology 
>> transition any easier.
>>
>> I just don't think that this is a very good argument you have made 
>> here because the coin can easily be flipped.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brian

>
> In both cases ... whether going from SQL Server to Oracle or from Oracle
> to SQL Server the onus is upon the person doing so to read the concept
> and architecture docs so that they understand the tool.
>
> Anyone that bypasses this step and just goes straight to looking up
> syntax is their own worst enemy.
>
> Your examples point out one folly where the names do not translate but
> try it with names that are easily found in both products. Search for
> LOG FILES in both the Oracle and SQL Server docs.
>
> Reading the syntax portions only can you determine that the two
> structures are completely different and perform similar but not
> identical functions?

I couldn't agree more with all of the above. Thanks for enhancing my point I was trying to make.

> Tony is making the same mistake made by so many others. He thinks he
> can take his "expertise" in one product and move it into another and
> it will never work. Anyone trying to use Oracle that doesn't understand
> rollback/undo segments is doomed. And you won't find them by looking up
> things you already know because they do not exist in any product derived
> from Ingres.

This all goes back to understanding the fundamentals and theory behind things. Thankfully, my graduate studies focused on database systems. I was then able to take that knowledge in to the workplace and apply it to Oracle databases. Here is the theory...now here is how it works (or doesn't) in Oracle. When I learned SQL Server, I relied on that foundation once again. But this time, I was able to say "in Oracle, we call this X...but they call it Y in SQL Server. And there are differences between X & Y but I can now manage both systems".

I often see individuals (not casting any stones towards anyone in particular here) that do not have a solid foundation to work from and have issues when going from one RDBMS platform to another. They know how it works in one, but have to do a ton of work to figure out how it works in another. If they had a good understanding of the theory and fundamentals, this transition is much easier...IMO.

Cheers,
Brian

-- 
===================================================================

Brian Peasland
dba_at_nospam.peasland.net
http://www.peasland.net

Remove the "nospam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good.
Now pick two out of the three" - Unknown

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Received on Tue Oct 02 2007 - 12:21:26 CDT