Re: Foreign key in Oracle Sql
From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:12:17 -0800
Message-ID: <41ef0566$1_1_at_127.0.0.1>
>
>
> Hi DA,
>
> Yes, I think they would sell more licenses. At the moment there will be
> companies looking into converting their database to Oracle and deciding
> against it because of the amount of work involved in rewriting the code to
> cater for the non-standard treatment of empty strings as NULLs.
>
>
> Much. It would cost them in the short run. But in the long run, they would
> the advantage that poorting their systems to another RDBMS becomes easier
> (or should I say: less hard).
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:12:17 -0800
Message-ID: <41ef0566$1_1_at_127.0.0.1>
Comments in-line.
Hugo Kornelis wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:22:45 -0800, DA Morgan wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>And if Oracle did it would they sell one more database license? Would >>there be any revenue generated in exchange for the massive expense?
>
>
> Hi DA,
>
> Yes, I think they would sell more licenses. At the moment there will be
> companies looking into converting their database to Oracle and deciding
> against it because of the amount of work involved in rewriting the code to
> cater for the non-standard treatment of empty strings as NULLs.
>>Then >>look at it from the standpoint of all of the major application vendors >>such as SAP, PeopleSoft, Siebel, Baan, etc. whose code sits on top of >>Oracle? How much of their code would need to be rewriten and retested?
>
>
> Much. It would cost them in the short run. But in the long run, they would
> the advantage that poorting their systems to another RDBMS becomes easier
> (or should I say: less hard).
That might be of interest to them but give me one reason why Oracle would want to facilitate that? Just one. I can't think of any.
Regards,
-- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)Received on Thu Jan 20 2005 - 02:12:17 CET