Re: Designing database tables for performance?
From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:17:06 -0800
Message-ID: <1172593024.568380_at_bubbleator.drizzle.com>
>>> On Feb 24, 5:30 am, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> F'n Pascal? "no disrespect?" HAHAHA
>>> When were you in my shoes? Do you realize I was awarded "Go Oracle
>>> user of the month" for standing up to him 15 years ago (when he was
>>> unfairly maligning some poor guy who's management stuck him with some
>>> usual product). Kinda scary that some people still remember that,
>>> though.
>>> Actually, I agree with a lot of what Date and Pascal say, I just have
>>> problems with Pascal's elitism and anyone who says Larry Ellison has
>>> brainwashed people like me. I started on relational databases in 1980
>>> and didn't run into Oracle until '83. I _did_ purposefully throw my
>>> lot in with Oracle around '89 as I saw it gaining the upper hand
>>> commercially. How one gets from there to brainwashing is beyond me.
>>> And until about 10 years ago I did a lot of work (paid, not
>>> theoretical, sorry) on issues having to do with multiple db engines.
>>> After that it was a simple fact of life that Oracle was top dog.
>>> Perhaps that involved brainwashing decision makers, I wouldn't know.
>>> I certainly have had no problem saying bad things about Larry or
>>> Oracle when I feel it is relevant, and laughing outright at marketing
>>> BS. That's one of the benefits of being an independent.
>>> jg
>>> --
>>> _at_home.com is bogus.
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.rdb/browse_thread/threa...
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:17:06 -0800
Message-ID: <1172593024.568380_at_bubbleator.drizzle.com>
Cimode wrote:
> On 27 fév, 04:23, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote: >> joel garry wrote:
>>> On Feb 24, 5:30 am, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 23 fév, 22:33, "jgar the jorrible" <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote: >>>>>> In what RAM would be less physical than HD ? For any reason, an >>>>>> absurdity is an absurdity. >>>>> Not an absurdity, you just aren't paying attention to how the I/O is >>>>> counted. >>>> So you say there are *ways* to count IO's. Fair enough. Question is: >>>> what has the way of counting IO's has any bearing on the media that >>>> supports them and therefore qualifies their nature as physical or >>>> logical? What is the difference: speed? >>>> Physical IO means that IO have some physical inmemory/hd counterpart >>>> while logical IO mean *no media* at all as a prerequisite. >>>>> From Oracle's point of view, if the desired data exists in >>>>> Oracle's buffers, that is a logical I/O. >>>> As I said, I am well aware of ORACLE brainwashing over its troops. >>>> ORACLE succeded to convince the audience of practictionners that RAM >>>> (call it cache if you want) = logical. One of Larry Ellison >>>> *contribution* to the field of database technology. Reading and >>>> educating yourself in RM will help you see the absurdity in that. (See >>>> rule of indepedence netween logical and physical layer) >>>> [Snipped Description of process - thanks for the pedagogic intent >>>> though] >>>>> Now, you are welcome to think it is better to be more simple than that >>>>> and just say RAM I/O is the same as HD, but that sounds patently >>>>> absurd to me. Perhaps you have a better way of distinguishing the >>>>> semantics? >>>> It sounds absurd because Larry Ellison has brainwashed people like you >>>> (no disrespect meant) *not* to think otherwise to boost up his >>>> products sales and bank account. Read books written by knowledgeable >>>> audiences about RM and you will see what I am refering to.(was in your >>>> shoes once long ago;)) A few good books to read that may help... >>>> http://www.dbdebunk.com/books.html
>>> F'n Pascal? "no disrespect?" HAHAHA
>>> When were you in my shoes? Do you realize I was awarded "Go Oracle
>>> user of the month" for standing up to him 15 years ago (when he was
>>> unfairly maligning some poor guy who's management stuck him with some
>>> usual product). Kinda scary that some people still remember that,
>>> though.
>>> Actually, I agree with a lot of what Date and Pascal say, I just have
>>> problems with Pascal's elitism and anyone who says Larry Ellison has
>>> brainwashed people like me. I started on relational databases in 1980
>>> and didn't run into Oracle until '83. I _did_ purposefully throw my
>>> lot in with Oracle around '89 as I saw it gaining the upper hand
>>> commercially. How one gets from there to brainwashing is beyond me.
>>> And until about 10 years ago I did a lot of work (paid, not
>>> theoretical, sorry) on issues having to do with multiple db engines.
>>> After that it was a simple fact of life that Oracle was top dog.
>>> Perhaps that involved brainwashing decision makers, I wouldn't know.
>>> I certainly have had no problem saying bad things about Larry or
>>> Oracle when I feel it is relevant, and laughing outright at marketing
>>> BS. That's one of the benefits of being an independent.
>>> jg
>>> --
>>> _at_home.com is bogus.
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.rdb/browse_thread/threa...
>> You've got my vote Joel. >> >> Sour grapes produces a lot of whine and it doesn't age all that well. >> >> If someone thinks Oracle has it wrong they are welcome to jump into >> the market and compete. My guess is that the only way they can make >> any money from their ideas is to write them in a book. > You talkj about it as if this was indeed not good enough..Writing crap > is easy but writing good books is difficult and noble. Somebody has > got to do the thinking before somebody builds the system. Else the > product becomes ORACLE (or SQL Server or DB2)
The only thing new coming out of discussions of theory seems to be whining about how things were not implemented in a purist fashion. Conveniently ignoring the fact that every attempt to do so has been a commercial failure.
-- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.orgReceived on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 17:17:06 CET