vista is.....
-
ok so i've been bashing vista lately (rightly so in some respects i feel) but today and yesterday i have had the misfortune to discover a horror so bad as to make me almost forgive vista and vs2008 ... ladies and gentlemen i give you... oracle a more bloated clunky useless waste of bits i have yet to meet (lotus notes excluded of course) ... 2 days of my life trying to install and configure this POS that i will never get back i am humbled :sigh:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
The difficulty with oracle, is that although it's user interface sucks, everyone says the actual database engine part is very efficient. I've never had the opportunity to discover this myself, I've only ever done fairly small things with it, but I've been told that it's the huge scale databases where it really comes into it's own. (Can anyone who has worked with it on a big scale confirm or deny these rumours?)
Simon
-
The difficulty with oracle, is that although it's user interface sucks, everyone says the actual database engine part is very efficient. I've never had the opportunity to discover this myself, I've only ever done fairly small things with it, but I've been told that it's the huge scale databases where it really comes into it's own. (Can anyone who has worked with it on a big scale confirm or deny these rumours?)
Simon
Oracle was and still is to my knowledge the choice of my previous employers for many many years. Like you said, the interfaces to it will be nice if and when they are written and tested properly, but the thing that it is actually there for, database work, it is very good at.
I still remember having to write your own code in FORTRAN rather than be a cut and paste merchant being pampered by colour coded Intellisense - ahh proper programming - those were the days :)
-
The difficulty with oracle, is that although it's user interface sucks, everyone says the actual database engine part is very efficient. I've never had the opportunity to discover this myself, I've only ever done fairly small things with it, but I've been told that it's the huge scale databases where it really comes into it's own. (Can anyone who has worked with it on a big scale confirm or deny these rumours?)
Simon
Oracle is the dogs danglies when it comes to databases. A friend is a DBA and he laughs at my use of SQL Server. He does, however, admit that the Oracle tools are pants.
-
ok so i've been bashing vista lately (rightly so in some respects i feel) but today and yesterday i have had the misfortune to discover a horror so bad as to make me almost forgive vista and vs2008 ... ladies and gentlemen i give you... oracle a more bloated clunky useless waste of bits i have yet to meet (lotus notes excluded of course) ... 2 days of my life trying to install and configure this POS that i will never get back i am humbled :sigh:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
Somebody posted an Oracle feature request that still makes me chuckle: "Dude. Make it faster."
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
The difficulty with oracle, is that although it's user interface sucks, everyone says the actual database engine part is very efficient. I've never had the opportunity to discover this myself, I've only ever done fairly small things with it, but I've been told that it's the huge scale databases where it really comes into it's own. (Can anyone who has worked with it on a big scale confirm or deny these rumours?)
Simon
Oracle is like the USS Nimitz - huge, ugly, expensive, difficult to use but it really gets the job done.
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
The difficulty with oracle, is that although it's user interface sucks, everyone says the actual database engine part is very efficient. I've never had the opportunity to discover this myself, I've only ever done fairly small things with it, but I've been told that it's the huge scale databases where it really comes into it's own. (Can anyone who has worked with it on a big scale confirm or deny these rumours?)
Simon
Simon Stevens wrote:
(Can anyone who has worked with it on a big scale confirm or deny these rumours?)
I am not a database expert, but the peers who are, they kept preaching this stuff all the time after we used Oracle on a distributed app, where I worked on the client UI part that runs on Windows mobile. Their opinion was that the DB engine of Oracle is rock solid and very highly efficient. I have no ideas on what were their benchmarks to measure it, but they've been into DB design and programming since the dbase days and are much more experienced than me. So, I'll give a good weightage to their opinion. :)
Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal - Friedrich Nietzsche .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. [Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
-
Oracle is the dogs danglies when it comes to databases. A friend is a DBA and he laughs at my use of SQL Server. He does, however, admit that the Oracle tools are pants.
Oracle is an excellent choice for large scale databases, but each release of SQL Server whittles away at it a bit. The big drawback to SQL Server is that it is tied to the Windows platform - with it's inherent scalability issues. Want a database to run on a 128 processor server, running on dedicated Unix servers? SQL Server isn't going to cut it here. Saying that - by the time you've finished wrestling with the Oracle tools to create a database, you've written your SQL Server app, and deployed it to live. Don't get me started on this subject, as I could go on about it for a very long time (having done a lot of work with both databases). :-D
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Oracle is an excellent choice for large scale databases, but each release of SQL Server whittles away at it a bit. The big drawback to SQL Server is that it is tied to the Windows platform - with it's inherent scalability issues. Want a database to run on a 128 processor server, running on dedicated Unix servers? SQL Server isn't going to cut it here. Saying that - by the time you've finished wrestling with the Oracle tools to create a database, you've written your SQL Server app, and deployed it to live. Don't get me started on this subject, as I could go on about it for a very long time (having done a lot of work with both databases). :-D
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
Yep, at his last job they spent in the region of £1m on a Sun server to run their database on. Pity it didn't work properly. My experience of Oracle is pretty similar to Lauren's. Installed it to do some testing of a tool we were producing and hated it immediately. I'm sure it's a joy to work with if you know what you're doing and need the features.
-
It's a bit like poker..... I'll see your Vista and I'll raise you an Oracle... and the quiet player dressed in blue in the corner is just waiting to play the winning bid of Lotus Notes.
I still remember having to write your own code in FORTRAN rather than be a cut and paste merchant being pampered by colour coded Intellisense - ahh proper programming - those were the days :)
Huh, I'm going to trump you both with a Crystal Reports.
-
ok so i've been bashing vista lately (rightly so in some respects i feel) but today and yesterday i have had the misfortune to discover a horror so bad as to make me almost forgive vista and vs2008 ... ladies and gentlemen i give you... oracle a more bloated clunky useless waste of bits i have yet to meet (lotus notes excluded of course) ... 2 days of my life trying to install and configure this POS that i will never get back i am humbled :sigh:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
If they would really hate you, they would give you DB2.
All the label says is that this stuff contains chemicals "... known to the State of California to cause cancer in rats and low-income test subjects."
Roger Wright
http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?select=965687&exp=5&fr=1#xx965687xx -
ok so i've been bashing vista lately (rightly so in some respects i feel) but today and yesterday i have had the misfortune to discover a horror so bad as to make me almost forgive vista and vs2008 ... ladies and gentlemen i give you... oracle a more bloated clunky useless waste of bits i have yet to meet (lotus notes excluded of course) ... 2 days of my life trying to install and configure this POS that i will never get back i am humbled :sigh:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
You should have asked Beth...she breezes through that stuff. Databases (Oracle and SQL Server in particular) are her speciality. :rolleyes:
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Tech Blog | Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
Oracle is an excellent choice for large scale databases, but each release of SQL Server whittles away at it a bit. The big drawback to SQL Server is that it is tied to the Windows platform - with it's inherent scalability issues. Want a database to run on a 128 processor server, running on dedicated Unix servers? SQL Server isn't going to cut it here. Saying that - by the time you've finished wrestling with the Oracle tools to create a database, you've written your SQL Server app, and deployed it to live. Don't get me started on this subject, as I could go on about it for a very long time (having done a lot of work with both databases). :-D
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Want a database to run on a 128 processor server, running on dedicated Unix servers? SQL Server isn't going to cut it here.
MS has announced windows for super computers in their partnership with Cray, so even if it doesn't now, I'd expect SQLServer 2010 to work on an omfgwtf-way box.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Yep, at his last job they spent in the region of £1m on a Sun server to run their database on. Pity it didn't work properly. My experience of Oracle is pretty similar to Lauren's. Installed it to do some testing of a tool we were producing and hated it immediately. I'm sure it's a joy to work with if you know what you're doing and need the features.
Simon Capewell wrote:
Yep, at his last job they spent in the region of £1m on a Sun server to run their database on. Pity it didn't work properly.
A friend of mine who does big DBs said the last time they were shopping for a new mega oracle server that even at the price of Free Sun would still be the most expensive option (vs IIRC HP or IBM) because oracle's licensing was per core instead of per socket.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Huh, I'm going to trump you both with a Crystal Reports.
ARrgg! That slime-infested, barnacle-ridden site called SAP be cursed to Davey Jones' locker. :((
Cheetah. Ferret. Gonads. What more can I say? - Pete O'Hanlon
-
The difficulty with oracle, is that although it's user interface sucks, everyone says the actual database engine part is very efficient. I've never had the opportunity to discover this myself, I've only ever done fairly small things with it, but I've been told that it's the huge scale databases where it really comes into it's own. (Can anyone who has worked with it on a big scale confirm or deny these rumours?)
Simon
Oracle uses row-versioning rather than locking, which means that readers don't block writers, nor do writers block readers. Traditionally, SQL Server used locks throughout, but since 2005 can be put in 'snapshot isolation' mode which also uses row-versioning. You can still get problems where a query demands repeatable reads - and therefore locks itself to a specific version of a row - then tries to update a row that has been updated since it read that row. Rightly, the database engine rejects the update because there could have been changes to the row that the update should have taken into account. You get much the same behaviour as a deadlock - an error occurs and the transaction is rolled back. The solution to that problem is to tell the server you intend to update the rows you're reading -
WITH (UPDLOCK)on SQL Server,FOR UPDATEon Oracle - and it will then take a lock preventing other updates to those rows until the end of your transaction. You could still get a deadlock if multiple FOR UPDATE queries read the same table in different orders, though. Example, query A locks row 1 while query B locks row 2, then A tries to lock 2 and B tries to lock 1: deadlock."Multithreading is just one damn thing after, before, or simultaneous with another." - Andrei Alexandrescu
-
Huh, I'm going to trump you both with a Crystal Reports.
When I think about “Crystal Reports” I instantly get big red itching spots all over my body.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.