Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.astraweb.com!news-small.astraweb.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: joel-garry@home.com (Joel Garry) Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: 2 Oracle doubts Date: 8 Aug 2003 14:02:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 54 Message-ID: <91884734.0308081302.12f4a25d@posting.google.com> References: <42d54ae4.0307250016.679a412b@posting.google.com> <3f33b482$0$83915$45beb828@newscene.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.116.125.178 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1060376576 19842 127.0.0.1 (8 Aug 2003 21:02:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Aug 2003 21:02:56 GMT Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.oracle.server:240129 Chuck wrote in message news:... > gters@zdas.com (Gters) wrote in > news:3f33b482$0$83915$45beb828@newscene.com: > > > In article , Quarkman > > wrote: > >>On 25 Jul 2003 01:16:17 -0700, delavega > >>wrote: > >> > >>> Hi. I´m a MySql programmer, but i need make a application with > >>> Oracle 8.1 Server. I have 2 doubts (for the moment) > >>> > >>> 1-Can i have a Oracle table without primary Key? > >> > >>Yes. But this is a *relational* database, so why you'd actually want > >>this I can't really imagine (OK, I've seen heaps of bad applications > >>who wouldn't know a primary key from a prune, but they're really *bad* > >>apps.) > >> > >>> 2-In a sql, the date fields are with quotas ("")? Exists the > >>> direct comparation between dates (<, >)? > >> > >>Get thyself to tahiti.oracle.com and start reading the documentation > >>on issues like this. Short answer: dates need a fair bit of > >>manipulation, but yes you can do maths with them. > >> > >>~QM > >> > > alot of packaged apps do not have any keys on thier oracle tables, > > they do it all interanally. usually it is to hinder reverse > > engineering of their apps, having all the relational stuff in the > > tables gives insight into design. I have seen the internal tables of > > a very well known and expensive enterprise package. no keys, tables > > and columns have almost nonsense names (and in a language other than > > english) > > > > I pity the poor sap that has to manage that database ;-) > > I think a lot of apps are writeen this way not to prevent reverse > engineering, but because they are written to run on every RDBMS > imaginable. To minimize customization for each RDBMS, they bury as much > as they can in the app. Not to mention the programmers probably have > little specific knoweledge about individual RDBMS's. I think you are giving far too much credit to those apps. I think they are written that way because they've been around so long, being hacked from architecture to architecture. jg -- @home.com is bogus. Of course, having part of it be old and part be new is worse. Seen that, too.