Re: Corporate Acceptance of Creating Views ?

Tom,

[Quoted] First, let me say that I consider you to be the planet's leading expert on almost everything Oracle. Your Wrox "Expert One-on-One" book is sitting within arm's reach. However, I am disappointed that your reasons for using views are all based on making life easier for the developer. My reasons for [Quoted] NOT using views are based on making life easier (faster response time) for the end-user. I am still open to persuasion if you can give me some reasons [Quoted] why views are better for the average corporate end-user (not power users who [Quoted] understand how to make joins and so on). I realize that in some examples, a [Quoted] view can be a more logical business construct for certain end-users, but reporting tools can hide the gritty details anyway. I'm not looking for justification of views, just to be convinced that they are beneficial to end [Quoted] users, not just developers.

"Thomas Kyte" <tkyte_at_us.oracle.com> wrote in message news:9rn75p0crk_at_drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <9rmtmf$ugueb$1_at_ID-114862.news.dfncis.de>, "Alan" says...
> >
> >Although I don't "outlaw" views, I haven't found a compelling reason to
use
> >them. I create search tables that would otherwise be views, and index
them
> >for optimum querying. Some tables are partially or totally denormalized,
and
> >some have every column indexed. I update the search tables nightly,
weekly,
> >or monthly, depending on business need. I don't have to worry about
queries
> >or indexing affecting OLTP, and query repsonse is excellent because there
> >are fewer joins needed. Also, I don't have the expense of a creating a
view
> >instance for each user.
> >
> >Of course, it really depends on the situation. We are not 7 x 24, so I
have
> >the luxury of running the search table updates overnight, the ad hoc
queries
> >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
> >is the way to go in a particular situation.
> >
>
> why? if the developer has a tool, wants to use the tool, sees value in
the
> tool, why wouldn't you let them use it?
>
> Sometimes, you just want to use it.
>
> I'll try to list some of the reasons:
>
> o layer of protection from changes. I can have 50 reports use a single
view,
> when you change my structures, I fix A view, not 50 reports.
>
> o security. I can build some cool security into them.
>
> o ease of reading code. Instead of having mega lines of SQL in my
procedure, I
> create a view. I can tune the view, I can change the view, the procedure
> remains the same. I like my code to be readable, views can be of IMMENSE
help
> here.
>
> You know what though, this is something that just plain and simply doesn't
need
> to be justified. Its a tool, its a tool to be used. developers should
not have
> to justify to a DBA why they want to use this tool.
>
>
> >"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
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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 Wed Oct 31 2001 - 21:36:52 CET