Re: Check constraint violated

Billy Verreynne wrote:
[]
>
> Yeah maybe.. The grass always look greener on the other side.
>
> What really bugs me (and which is why I ranted at Ed), is that having Oracle
> skills in development process is critical. Yet, the norm is still to treat
> the database as a black box. Throw tables into it. Stir vigorously and
> serve.
>
> The tables in the mix are not normalised. There is no physical db design.
> They never heard of an IOT, bitmap index or any of the other tools in the
> toolbox. But then when all problems are decreed to be nails, you only need
> The Hammer from the toolbox. <sigh>
>
> --
> Billy

BTW, Billy,

in my current job, I'm back using UNIFY. Man, was I spoiled with ORACLE's multiversioning! The biggest problem here seems to be locking! Never had to think about that in ORACLE (well in a few SELECT...FOR UPDATE statements on rare occasions).

There is a lot that should be black box to some levels, you clearly see where. I do agree with you Billy (and take no offense at your rant earlier). Also a good design lends itself to easy enhancement in features and performance.

I'll leave you with this thought:
Sometimes you feel like whale shit at the bottom of the ocean,... and sometimes you don't feel that good!

Enjoy. Maybe the point did get across to a few. A good design is worth fighting for.

-- 
Ed Prochak
running    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
netiquette http://www.psg.com/emily.html
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost