Re: Foreign key in Oracle Sql

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:36:16 -0800, DA Morgan wrote:

>Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:48:59 -0800, DA Morgan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Probably. But if you can do it in MSDE, then why would you want to do it
>>>>in any other DBMS?
>>>
>>>Linux rather than Windows. Not have the GUI overhead. Not have a large
>>>percentage of CPU wasted by the o/s. Not have to spend much of my time
>>>running antivirus and anti-spyware programs.
>>
>>
>> Hi DA,
>>
>> Most small to medium sized companies already have some Windows systems
>> deployed. For their bookkeeping, for instance, or for the correspondence.
>
>If my correspondence you mean MS Word I agree. But middle sized firms
>most run their accounting systems on some flavour of *NIX. Midsize is
>not a found hundred or a few thousand employees. Midsize is tens of
>thousands of employees. Amazon.com, for example, is midsize. IBM and
>GM and Boeing are large. I think you are referring to what I would call
>hot-dog stands to small business and in that area I would agree.

Hi DA,

Seems we have a terminology mismatch. Tens of thousands of employees is large in my perception. Hundreds to thousands is middle-sized; one- or two-digit personnel numbers is small.

>But even if you aren't watching ... MS is ... and Linux is the flavour
>of the decade.

Which decade?

http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?1003196 - in 2004, 1.3% of PCs worldwide run Linux as opposed to 96.2% running various versions of Windows. Linux in projected to claim 28% of worldwide server shipments and redeployments by 2008; no number for Windows quoted, but expect it to be near 70%. Only 16% of enterprises expect more than half of the company servers to run Linux, opposed to 25.6% expecting no Linux-running server at all and 52.3% expecting some servers but no more than half.

Yes, Linux' market share is growing. Fast. But considering the numbers above, you have no choice but to admit that this decade, MS is still the flavour. Next decade will be for Linux, if it continues to grow like it's been doing the last years.

>> They are concerned with running their business, not with learning
>> computers, so they LIKE a pretty and intuitive GUI. They are already used
>> to the Windows look-and-feel. They'd have a hard time converting to any
>> other OS.
>
>Exactly what is the difference between the Windows GUI and the RedHat
>Linux GUI?
(snip)

Why then did *you* write:
>>>Linux rather than Windows. Not have the GUI overhead.

>> The CPU spends most of it's time twiddling thumbs.
>
>Not in the database world which is the topic of this discussion. The CPU
>often is pegged at 100%.

To be more specific, the topic of discussion is databases being used as backend for an ERP package that's being deployed at a small to medium sized business - up to a few thousnd employees in my perception.

If the CPU is pegged at 100% in that scenarion, then they aither use a very inefficient database as backend, or they have some terribly ineffective application logic.

>> Depending on size, they either have an antivirus/antispyware protection
>> that auto-updates, or a (part-time) system administrator to keep the
>> network safely running. Adding one extra Windows server to the network to
>> run MSDE on, or installing MSDE on a little used machine won't add much
>> burden. Introducing a new OS (Linux) would be more trouble.
>
>That's not what experience teaches. Experience teaches that databases,
>remember the subject here isn't email and MS Word, use a lot of
>resources. And if you don't need it then you are probably just fine with
>a small box of 3x5 cards.

See my comments above about our teminology mismatch.

>>>>The only statement I made, is that ERP systems for small to middle sized
>>>>company should run fine with MSDE as the backend database.
>>>>Best, Hugo
>>>
>>>Obviously your definition of middle sized is not mine. What I would call
>>>middle sized would choke on MSDE and would say no to any product based
>>>on it for several reasons.
>>>
>>>1. If we grow then what?
>>
>> Upgrade to SQL Server Standard Edition: USD 2,249 for Server License + 10
>> Device Client Access Licenses, or USD 4,999 per processor for Processor
>> License (no Client Access Licenses required).
>> Source: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
>
>Oracle Oracle SE1 where more functionality can be had for 1/2 that
>price. Then again if they had started with a better database on a better
>o/s they wouldn't have to upgrade at all would they.

Within the context of databases used as backend to ERP packages, more functionality of the database is irrelevant.

Your claim of 1/2 the price is nonsense. - The per processor license price differs by only 4 dollar ($ 4,999 for SQL Server; $ 4,995 for Oracle).
- For a comparison of Named User Plus licenses for Oracle to Server + Device Client Access Licenses for SQL Server, let's do a calculation based on 25 end users, some of them working parttime, so they are using 20 computers (a well written app should be able to run with MSDE without problems for well over 20 simultaneous users, but let's assume it's not a very well written app). For SQL Server, the price is $ 2,249 plus 10 extra client access licenses - I couldn't find a price for extra CAL's, but based on the listed prices, I expect this to be somehwere in the $ 3.700 - $ 3.800 range. For Oracle, a Named User Plus license is required for each of the 25 users, for a total of 25 x $ 149 = $ 3.725. About the same prices - slightly cheaper if only full-time users use the system and more expensive is there are more part-time workers.

>>>2. No support
>>
>> If I buy an ERP package, I expect support from the ERP vendor, not from
>> the vendor of the database used by the ERP package.
>
>I do to. But they don't provide support for MSDE which was the subject
>before you tried to change it to the ERP package.

I didn't change the subject. You were the one to bring ERP manufacturers in the discussion. Quote from your message <41eeddab$1_1_at_127.0.0.1>:

  "look at it from the standpoint of all of the major application vendors    such as SAP, PeopleSoft, Siebel, Baan, etc. whose code sits on top of    Oracle?"

To this I replied that easier portability would be beneficial to these application vendors. You then asked why Oracle would want to facilitate that. I gave several reasons; one of the reasons is that these vendors might be pressured by THEIR customers to move to SQL Server (as a result of MSDE being free); if enough pressure builds, the vendors would be forced to choose to support either MS only or MS plus Oracle - and the latter would only be viable if both MS and Oracle move to support as much of the SQL standards as possible.

To that, you responded that Oracle is no longer more expensive than MS (which is correct for the standard edition - the axmple above shows almost no difference in price - but not for the free MSDE version) and that Oracle is much better suited for that kind of applications (which might or might not be true - I think it isn't - but that's quite irrelevant if the vendor's customers are demanding MSDE support - they won't argue with their customers, they'll provide what's asked and take the bucks).

>>>3. Poor ability to recover transactions if a problem occurs
>>
>> Evidence?
>
>University of Washington. EE1 room 037. Schedule an appointment.

And you'll pay the airplane ticket?

>>>4. MS will likely drop it in a year or two and then they are stuck
>>> just as MS is gearing up now to drop .NET
>>
>> MS is in the beta phase for SQL Server 2005. Like SQL Server 2000, the
>> 2005 version will also feature a free edition (SQL Server Express) with
>> some limitations. These limitations will be even less than the limitations
>> imposed on MSDE: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/default.asp
>
>So, in other words, it is already dropped.

That's like saying Oracle 9i was dropped when Oracle 10g was introduced. Or rather: when Oracle 10g went in beta.

If you had bothered to check the facts, you'd have found that MSDE is still available for download.

Even more interesting is that you quote almost every part of my message, but omit the paragraph where I tell you that support will continue for 5 to 10 years after introduction of SQL Express and SQL Server 2005.

>> So yes, you are right that MS will likely drop support for MSDE and other
>> editions of SQL Server 2000 - but as a result of introducing a new
>> version, not because they drop the product.
>
>And just like when a certain very large aerospace company made the
>mistake of building small apps in Access 2 then had to rewrite ever line
>of code to upgrade to Access 95 then rewrite most lines of code to
>upgrade to Access 97 ... you will just write of the entire thing. Nice
>that you can ... most business owners would not be so charitable.

I'm not talking about Access, I'm talking about SQL Server. Those are completely different products. I'd never recommend using Acces for any serious business.

That you are equating Access to SQL Server shows that you either have a complete lack of understanding of the products you're commenting, or that you are completely out of proper arguments.

>>>5. Forces running on the Windows o/s
>>
>> Which is actuall a GOod Thing for many companies, as they already have
>> Windows deployed, but no other OS'es.
>>
>> Best, Hugo
>
>So is stubbing your toe if it keeps you from thinking about your
>headache. That one made mistake in the past is not a valid reason for
>continuing to make a mistake. One good virus, trojan horse, or spyware
>attack and you may have nothing but burnt toast.

Agreed. But let's not forget that Linux is vulnerable to those attacks as well. To name just a few examples: Bliss (Virus), Slapper (worm), JBellz (trojan horse), ... Searching for "Linux" on the site of either McAfee or Symantec brings up a few hundred hits.

The amount of malicious programs on Windows is mmuch higher. Some factors that influence this are:
- the big MS-hatred amongs hackers - this will probably never change. - the large installed base, ensuring rapid spreading - this might change in the next decade, when Linux is starting to get two-digit market share, making Linux a more attractive target for attacks. - Linux being open source is often quoted as a guarantee against malicious code; it isn't of course. Being open source also means that hackers can find vulnerabilites quicker.
- the lower risk-awareness of Linux users might make Linux an even more interesting target than MS for prospective hackers.....

>Two major firms in the World Trade Center in New York went out of
>business. Not because of the loss of life. Not because of the horrible
>tradegy that took place. But because of an inability to recover their
>data. That lesson has not been lost on serious business people. And
>even if you are not impressed by the implications ... Mr. Balmer is.

I know all too well about the importance of regular backups, of keeping copies of the backups safe and on a different site, and of regular testing of the emergency recovery routines. With a proper backup and recovery procedure, SQL Server is safe. Without a proper backup and recovery procedure, no databse is safe.

Best, Hugo

-- 

(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)