Re: OMF or not OMF? DBCA or Manual scripts

From: Rich Jesse <>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:14:23 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <>

> We use dbca to create the database but also have it generate the scripts so
> that if something happens that requires the database to be rebuilt we can go
> back to the generated scripts and not miss anything.

It seems I'm the only stick in the mud who doesn't like using DBCA. I just gave it another shot on to make sure it's still a terrible GUI.

If one accepts the defaults for datafiles it might be OK, but I have yet to be able to modify the default datafiles without GUI corruption. Maybe if I type slow and don't make mistakes, but that's hardly practical.

Every new release, I do use it to see what new items it adds to the script generation, but that's it. I don't like tools that make it easy for a Jr. DBA to screw up, as the default template includes licensed options (which are also a major pain to remove post-install, from experience). And with the GUI issues, I just don't trust it to properly create my databases.

No OMF. No ASM. No DBCA. They are (potentially) answers to problems I don't have, and include or have included major bugs that I don't need. As a solo DBA, there is just no ROI that anyone's been able to prove for me to use them.

Sigh. I don't get to attend the Cool Tool Party...again. APEX! I love APEX! Does that count? :)


Received on Tue Mar 25 2014 - 15:14:23 CET

Original text of this message