Re: Corporate Wide Public Synonyms ++ multiple schemas

Richard Foote wrote:
> "Mark C. Stock" <mcstockX_at_Xenquery .com> wrote in message
> news:4O6dnbptZZ-VTpHfRVn-hw_at_comcast.com...
> >
> > actually my point is that a single application uses multiple
schemas --
> > which in my experience is typically the case. there are always at
lease a
> > few common tables, and there are often cross-schema references. in
other
> > words, not every table that the application accesses is always
going to be
> > in the target schema
> >
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Interestingly, my experience has been the quite the opposite with
most
> applications I've worked with deriving it's data from the one schema,

> although there have been exceptions.

I've seen more like Mark. Seems that other db platforms call things "databases" that we call schemata, and applications therefore have "database"-dependent tables with identical names for doing extensions to the data dictionary and other such things that wouldn't be done if it were Oracle-specific.

And of course portal was so bad at accessing remote db's using public synonyms (like metalink Note: 174618.1) they had to rearchitect OAS to make portal run local to the db.

>
> But yes, that being the case, my specific solution would be
problematic.
> However, back to the OP, prevention is the best cure and while one
has the
> chance, avoid public synonyms, especially if significant scalability
is a
> requirement.
>
> Cheers
>
> Richard

Note 131271.1 has some interesting observations on the obsolete oracle versions, though I'd take anything Steve Adams says over that.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050212/news_1b12bakbone.html
What, no ties?
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67723&p=irol-governance