Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

From: Galen Boyer <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com>
Date: 30 Aug 2004 12:15:06 -0500
Message-ID: <uisb0blcd.fsf@standardandpoors.com>

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, holger.baer_at_science-computing.de wrote:
> Galen Boyer wrote:
> [snip]
>

>>>>Here's an attribute name:
>>>>
>>>>  financial information submission failure penalty
>>>>
>>>>This is spec'd out by the business I'm the datamodeler for,
>>>>but I guess I'm in a ridiculous business, just like the OP
>>>>cause my database doesn't support that name?  I abbreviated
>>>>it to, finclinfsubmfailpnlty.  I kind of think the fully
>>>>spelled out version is easier to understand.

>
> But its hell if you ever have to type it in (and I'm not
> exactly slow with the keyboard). IMO, that's why Oracle
> 'invented' comments. Full descriptiv, easy to understand. But
> you never but once have to type them in.
>
> [...]
>

>> I can beat your crypticness.  I can create a single character
>> UNIX script, q.sh, which will solve everybody's needs.  Sign
>> of a good lazy programmer.  But, not all that descriptive,
>> that's for sure.

>
> On the other hand you didn't mention that you'd put a man page
> at the top of q.sh wich would tell everyone interested what
> parameters q.sh would take and what they did to the outcome ;-)
>
> [...]

>> I do it to help the development effort, not the end users.  It
>> certainly helps me when I do a desc on a table, even when I
>> designed the table.

>
> Again, that's what comments are for (and they are highly
> underused IMO).
>

>>
>>>And I know a lot of people who would get ticked off with the
>>>'Tbl' part of that name.
>> Let em get ticked.

>
> Oh, and don't forget to put a silly abbreviation of the
> tablename as prefix to every single column of the table. If god
> didn't want us to type at least 100 chars for a simple '2
> columns of a table select' he wouldn't have given us
> keyboards... or 10 fingers come to that ;-)
>

>> Okay, if thats supposedly the argument.  Is it actually
>> written somewhere, "Though shalt not have > 30 characters ..."

>
> Unfortunately AFAIK it's not. But about time as far as I'm
> concerned.

None of your arguments are based on anything but convenience, which is what my argument is, as well. So, we can argue who has the more convenient development environment, which is fine, but, I don't see anything about sound database design theory anywhere.

So, once again, did this limitation come from Oracle blessing us with what is most convenient?

-- 
Galen Boyer

Received on Mon Aug 30 2004 - 12:15:06 CDT