Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:34:25 +0200,
=?iso-8859-1?q?Leandro_Guimar=E3es_Faria_Corsetti_Dutra?= <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Really? Do you have any details?

Google for "SQL Server 2005" and custom data types

or Yukon and custom data types.

http://www.code-magazine.com/focus/Article.aspx?quickid=0303052

> I have interestingly found that currently MS SQL Server
>practitioners I've had contact with are more conceptually sound than
>Oracle ones.

What I have found is that Delphi and Visual Studio practitioners tend to use the DBMSs better than Java practitioners.

> Would like to know why, your information may point to
>MS's approach being at least slightly saner than Oracle's.

IMO the advantage of M$'s approach is that we can create custom types that don't need to work with pointers.

We can create custom types that are not reference types, using the Java jargon.

Regards Received on Thu Dec 02 2004 - 13:26:08 CET