Re: Ultimate Question: Oracle, MSSQL, Others vs MYSQL LIMIT Statement

"Serge Rielau" <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com> wrote in message news:3D9C3BFE.4070008_at_ca.ibm.com...
> Naturally my knowlegde of Oracle is mostly book-smarts....
>

http://otn.oracle.com/docs/products/oracle9i/doc_library/release2/em.920/a86 647/reorg.htm#1006543
> I'm not sure why Oracle would spend money on features that aren't useful
> in one way or another.

Note the use of the word 'Wizard' in that product! It's for people who like Windows, and thus weren't able to set it up properly in the first place (and I'm being semi-serious).

>
> Howard, please note that this thread has in no means been an attack on
> any product, nor on the relative need for reorg between produts.

Wasn't suggesting that it was. I was picking up, specifically with regard to Oracle, on the claim that reorganisations are required routinely to ensure efficient use of space. I imagine other products have a similarly miniscule need for reorganisation when they're set up properly to begin with.

>However
> minuscule the need for reorg of some sorts is in any given product
> (inluding Oracle) it exists and that makes reorg one of the many reasons
> to stick to separation of an abstract access to the data withot exposing
> any physical properties.
> .. which coincidently was is the topic of this thread.
>
> Now if you insist we can cut out all the other cross-posted groups and
> turn to a reorg war in the Oracle newsgroup.
>

Nah, I was just addressing a specific issue I saw raised that isn't really true for Oracle. Quite happy to let sleeping dogs lie.

Regards
HJR
> Cheers
> Serge
>
> --
> Serge Rielau
> DB2 UDB SQL Compiler Development
> IBM Software Lab, Toronto
>
> Try the DB2 UDB V8.1 beta at
> http://www-3.ibm.com/software/data/db2/
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 03 2002 - 08:20:12 CDT