Re: Is Oracle deliberately difficult?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:16:25 +0100, Sid_James <sid.james_at_virgin.net> wrote:

>I've been learning Oracle for a while now and I do think of it as quite
>challenging in an enjoyable way. I don't use Enterprise Manager, I'd
>rather get to to know the 'nuts and bolts'. However, having done a SQL
>Server administrator's course, I can't help thinking that Oracle is
>rather more difficult to use than maybe it should be.
>
>Sensible, rational responses that shoot me up in flames are always
>preferable!
>
>e d

Let's not forget completely inconsistent naming for system catalog tables and their fields. Does the table you're after have an underscore in it, or not? What about the field? Is it tablespace_name or table_space_name? My god what a mess!

I agree with the storage comments as well. Micro-managing space was fine 20 years ago, but not today. So what did Oracle do? Invent autocoalescing? No, rather than fix the problem, they just threw in autoextending to complicate things further. Care to drop that datafile from the tablespace? Tough!

And my all-time favourite ... lack of mulitple databases in one instance (Don't even think about mentioning schemas to overcome tihs. I've listed the flaws in this before, and Nuno and co have tackled this with me ... we can all go off the deja.com and save typing on this one).

That's three ... I'll let someone else have a go.

Ciao
Fuzzy
#;-) Received on Tue Aug 29 2000 - 22:33:57 CDT