Re: Corporate Acceptance of Creating Views ?

[Quoted] Although I don't "outlaw" views, I haven't found a compelling reason to use [Quoted] them. I create search tables that would otherwise be views, and index them for optimum querying. Some tables are partially or totally denormalized, and [Quoted] some have every column indexed. I update the search tables nightly, weekly, [Quoted] or monthly, depending on business need. I don't have to worry about queries [Quoted] or indexing affecting OLTP, and query repsonse is excellent because there [Quoted] are fewer joins needed. Also, I don't have the expense of a creating a view [Quoted] instance for each user.

Of course, it really depends on the situation. We are not 7 x 24, so I have [Quoted] the luxury of running the search table updates overnight, the ad hoc queries [Quoted] are fairly predictable, and our security needs are pretty static.

Anyway, I'm not dogmatic about it, but I do need to be convinced that a view [Quoted] is the way to go in a particular situation.

[Quoted] "Thomas Kyte" <tkyte_at_us.oracle.com> wrote in message news:9rmeoj01bgk_at_drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <eQoD7.43362$C7.13166440_at_news02.optonline.net>, "jane" says...
> >
> >Is it true that in general corporate enviornment, the use of Views is
> >discouraged ? even frowned up ?
> >
> >I was working with this "seasoned" developer on developing reports, I am
new
> >to the Oracle enviornment
> >and she insisted that I should NOT use views if at all possible,
preferablly
> >not at all.
> >
> >"You should be able to get all the data you need with straight SQL...even
if
> >it have to go for pages !"
> >"...you are creating yet another dependency...it's another object that
has
> >to be maintained !......"
> >
> >The thing was with tools like Crystal Reports, it does not handle manual
SQL
> >very well (requires
> >a separate file to store the query)
> >
> >Is this true ? Was she full of bs ?
> >
> >thanks
> >jane
> >
> >
>
> I love views -- for the same reason packages are the only thing you should
use
> in real code (never a standalong procedure).
>
> Packages protect you from changes -- the SPECIFICATION won't change -- but
the
> implementation might (eg: you find a bug in the algorithm and fix it --
the
> interface didn't change -- same inputs and outputs but the mechanics
changed)
>
>
> Views are the same way. Underlying data structure changes (eg: someone
adds a
> column, denormalizes a table, splits a single table into two, whatever)
don't
> affect your CODE -- just your view. Consider the view a "specificiation",
fix
> the view -- you've fixed ALL pieces of code that use it.
>
> There are some people who say -- you should NEVER query a table. You
should
> always query a view. These people are never phased by a request to change
a
> column name or the order of columns in a table definition as it is as
trivial as
> dropping and recreating the view now.
>
> I might not go that far (but when asked to change a column name -- i will
rename
> the table, create a view and grant on the view, no one ever knows).....
but it
> shows there is a difference of opinion out there.
>
> Views are a tool, a programming construct. Anyone who "outlaws" them is
*wrong*
> and being very short sighted.
>
> --
> Thomas Kyte (tkyte_at_us.oracle.com) http://asktom.oracle.com/
> Expert one on one Oracle, programming techniques and solutions for Oracle.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861004826/
> Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle Corp
>
Received on Tue Oct 30 2001 - 20:05:52 CET