Re: Can a procedure contain only a SELECT statement?
From: Bob Jones <email_at_me.not>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:08:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4ba66e9c$0$19142$c3e8da3_at_news.astraweb.com>
>>>> Robert Klemme<shortcutter_at_googlemail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/19/2010 08:39 PM, Sybrand Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:26:44 -0400, Thomas Gagne
>>>>>> <TandGandGAGNE_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My background is Sybase& SqlServer. On both, due I'm sure to a
>>>>>>> common heritage, a stored procedure is capable of being as simple
>>>>>>> or complex as the programmer wants. Sometimes, all that is needed
>>>>>>> is a select statement. Sometimes even simple projections may
>>>>>>> require multiple steps to prepare the last SELECT. Additionally,
>>>>>>> stored procedures are capable of returning multiple result sets. I
>>>>>>> assumed, incorrectly, such a thing was not so complicated that it
>>>>>>> couldn't be easily done inside Oracl
>>>>>> Mickeysoft has never understood the Procedure concept, and ignored
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> formal defintiion and abused it to return a result set.
>>>>>> It seems like you belong to the class of sqlserver 'developers' which
>>>>>> is so narrow-minded they automatically reject everything done
>>>>>> differently by Oracle and start bashing Oracle for it.
>>>>>> Luckily sqlserver is incapable of being an enterprise class product,
>>>>>> just because of its poor architecture and vendor lock-in, so your
>>>>>> 'objections' are futile.
>>>>> I would not be too sure of that. SQL Sever isn't as bad as people are
>>>>> trying to make it look - and it's gaining ground, especially in the
>>>>> area of dealing with larger data sets. Maybe it's not as "enterprise
>>>>> class" as Oracle is (or is claimed to be) but the management tools
>>>>> with good graphical user interface were there before Oracle had Grid
>>>>> Control. Yes, I know - real DBA's use command line, but there are
>>>>> situations where a graphical visualization can greatly help.
>>>> One of the biggest winning arguments for Oracle, is that it run on
>>>> almost all platforms, MS products only run on one.
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:08:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4ba66e9c$0$19142$c3e8da3_at_news.astraweb.com>
"Robert Klemme" <shortcutter_at_googlemail.com> wrote in message news:80n5p6F596U1_at_mid.individual.net...
> On 03/21/2010 04:49 PM, Bob Jones wrote: >> "Robert Klemme" <shortcutter_at_googlemail.com> wrote in message >> news:80mfq8Fo7U1_at_mid.individual.net... >>> On 20.03.2010 23:20, Galen Boyer wrote:
>>>> Robert Klemme<shortcutter_at_googlemail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/19/2010 08:39 PM, Sybrand Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:26:44 -0400, Thomas Gagne
>>>>>> <TandGandGAGNE_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My background is Sybase& SqlServer. On both, due I'm sure to a
>>>>>>> common heritage, a stored procedure is capable of being as simple
>>>>>>> or complex as the programmer wants. Sometimes, all that is needed
>>>>>>> is a select statement. Sometimes even simple projections may
>>>>>>> require multiple steps to prepare the last SELECT. Additionally,
>>>>>>> stored procedures are capable of returning multiple result sets. I
>>>>>>> assumed, incorrectly, such a thing was not so complicated that it
>>>>>>> couldn't be easily done inside Oracl
>>>>>> Mickeysoft has never understood the Procedure concept, and ignored
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> formal defintiion and abused it to return a result set.
>>>>>> It seems like you belong to the class of sqlserver 'developers' which
>>>>>> is so narrow-minded they automatically reject everything done
>>>>>> differently by Oracle and start bashing Oracle for it.
>>>>>> Luckily sqlserver is incapable of being an enterprise class product,
>>>>>> just because of its poor architecture and vendor lock-in, so your
>>>>>> 'objections' are futile.
>>>>> I would not be too sure of that. SQL Sever isn't as bad as people are
>>>>> trying to make it look - and it's gaining ground, especially in the
>>>>> area of dealing with larger data sets. Maybe it's not as "enterprise
>>>>> class" as Oracle is (or is claimed to be) but the management tools
>>>>> with good graphical user interface were there before Oracle had Grid
>>>>> Control. Yes, I know - real DBA's use command line, but there are
>>>>> situations where a graphical visualization can greatly help.
>>>> One of the biggest winning arguments for Oracle, is that it run on
>>>> almost all platforms, MS products only run on one.
>>> Why is that an argument pro Oracle? >>> >> >> Very simple, choices. That is a major advantage. > > I beg to differ. Some do not need the choice, some are only looking for > MS based products, some don't care about the OS...
Saying I don't care about OS is like saying I don't care about cost, features, scalability, and so forth. I have no doubt some companies think Windows is the best solution for everything - at least M$ is one of them.
> On the other hand, if you need to support multiple platforms you either > need to make compromises to be able to adjust your product to all of > them - or you need significant more development resources.
Why? Oracle has already done that. You talk to the databases the same way across all platforms.
> The sheer number of supported OS to choose from is not a value in itself. >
Of course, choice has no value. Scalability has no value. Security has no value. Nothing has value. Received on Sun Mar 21 2010 - 14:08:20 CDT