Re: Where is Oracle’s Grid ?

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1072796803.85192_at_yasure...

> > what a general purpose RDBMS is for. If what they create makes sense
> > is a different proposition!
>
> And if it doesn't how can the database tools be used to tune it?

Very simply: if the SQL can be found in the SGA and I can dynamically tune it like 10g allows me to (the actual mechanism is irrelevant here), then the toolset that 10g is providing me with allows me to tune very bad SQL. Which is what I want to do.

>
> How many no. But how badly yes. Do you think a database engine should be
> able to tune a Cartesian join?

If the CBO forces a CJ when one wasn't needed, then I should be able to change it back to something the db can deal with. The CBO does this CJ replacement often enough when join columns are of different data types, as you likely are aware of.

Of course, if the statement was coded initially as a CJ and nothing I do in tuning can change that (missing join conditions), then my only resort is to go back to the 3rd-party maker and get them to send me a patch.

> Do you think "unbreakable" means you
> don't use RAC, don't use DataGuard, and write looks with incremental
> commits? Of course not.

Well, to me it goes like this: I can use RAC if the application is of a design that can take advantage of that. And I can do it (usually) without violating the 3rd-party agreements.

Of course like I said: if the app can take advantage of RAC. If it's one of those where nothing is done on the db server and everything is done on the app server, then I can RAC to infinity and I still won't have solved any problems.

Guess which type of app is developed nowadays? How relevant is RAC gonna be for them? Any wonder why RAC's been received with lukewarm enthusiasm from the 3rd-party users?

Same goes for all the other stuff. It's not the features, it's how well they fit the existing market. The production DBAs can do nothing with them if they are essentially useless in their environment. No matter how much they might be interested in using them.

> Then if you didn't know this before let me be the first to tell you. The
> products we are talking about are full of lead ingots. I've seen their
> internals. They were written by people that know nothing about PL/SQL
> or, if they did, forgot it when the coded these product lines.

They were essentially COBOL-mainframe products that were "ported" to other environments by a bunch of ignoramus idiots with NO IDEA whatsoever how to spell UNIX, let alone Oracle or PL/SQL or anything else. As for their knowledge of SQL, it was mostly based on very old versions of mainframe DB2 and that defines it all. Yes, I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. I even know the calibre of the people supporting one of those in Australia. From a long time ago...

>
> I drive a Jag so ... in a sense ... I drive a Ford. Sends shudders down
> my spine.

ROFL!
> Then you are well aware that the quality of what developers develop is
> critical. You don't blame these examples on Oracle.

Of course not.

> I've never once seen Oracle marketing name either of us in an
> advertisement. Got a link? ;-)

Oh, believe me: they have "named" me often enough. I'm probably one of the few in Australia quite a number of Oracle USA directors and managers WILL recognize on sight. It's happened often enough for me to believe otherwise. And that's why I've stayed out of public "Oracle" gatherings. :)

> How can Oracle give you access to compiled code they didn't write?

I don't want it!

> If you think 10g, or 100z, is going to give you access to compiled code
> written by another vendor you are begging for disappointment. No product
> other than a decompiler will do that.

Don't need to.

> I agree. It is part of the job. But it is not the database vendor's
> fault. You've yet to explain how they can possibly grant you access to
> something written by another vendor?

Don't need to. All I want is to be able to tune the SQL when I find a moronic one or one that the CBO has taken to a moronic level. Without having to change the source code. That is only possible in 10g. That's what should have been there ages ago and was asked for ages ago. That's what the previous stuff is essentially useless for.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam