Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

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

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:26:08 GMT
Message-ID: <41af09b4.5686875@news.wanadoo.es>


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 - 06:26:08 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US