Can a procedure contain only a SELECT statement?
in [Oracle]
|
Prev: semvmx
Next: 10.2.0.5 Patchset
From: Bob Jones on 21 Mar 2010 15:08 "Robert Klemme" <shortcutter(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:80n5p6F596U1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 03/21/2010 04:49 PM, Bob Jones wrote: >> "Robert Klemme" <shortcutter(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message >> news:80mfq8Fo7U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> On 20.03.2010 23:20, Galen Boyer wrote: >>>> Robert Klemme<shortcutter(a)googlemail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 03/19/2010 08:39 PM, Sybrand Bakker wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:26:44 -0400, Thomas Gagne >>>>>> <TandGandGAGNE(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My background is Sybase& SqlServer. On both, due I'm sure to a >>>>>>> common heritage, a stored procedure is capable of being as simple >>>>>>> or complex as the programmer wants. Sometimes, all that is needed >>>>>>> is a select statement. Sometimes even simple projections may >>>>>>> require multiple steps to prepare the last SELECT. Additionally, >>>>>>> stored procedures are capable of returning multiple result sets. I >>>>>>> assumed, incorrectly, such a thing was not so complicated that it >>>>>>> couldn't be easily done inside Oracl >>>>>> Mickeysoft has never understood the Procedure concept, and ignored >>>>>> the >>>>>> formal defintiion and abused it to return a result set. >>>>>> It seems like you belong to the class of sqlserver 'developers' which >>>>>> is so narrow-minded they automatically reject everything done >>>>>> differently by Oracle and start bashing Oracle for it. >>>>>> Luckily sqlserver is incapable of being an enterprise class product, >>>>>> just because of its poor architecture and vendor lock-in, so your >>>>>> 'objections' are futile. >>>>> I would not be too sure of that. SQL Sever isn't as bad as people are >>>>> trying to make it look - and it's gaining ground, especially in the >>>>> area of dealing with larger data sets. Maybe it's not as "enterprise >>>>> class" as Oracle is (or is claimed to be) but the management tools >>>>> with good graphical user interface were there before Oracle had Grid >>>>> Control. Yes, I know - real DBA's use command line, but there are >>>>> situations where a graphical visualization can greatly help. >>>> One of the biggest winning arguments for Oracle, is that it run on >>>> almost all platforms, MS products only run on one. >>> Why is that an argument pro Oracle? >>> >> >> Very simple, choices. That is a major advantage. > > I beg to differ. Some do not need the choice, some are only looking for > MS based products, some don't care about the OS... Saying I don't care about OS is like saying I don't care about cost, features, scalability, and so forth. I have no doubt some companies think Windows is the best solution for everything - at least M$ is one of them. > On the other hand, if you need to support multiple platforms you either > need to make compromises to be able to adjust your product to all of > them - or you need significant more development resources. Why? Oracle has already done that. You talk to the databases the same way across all platforms. > The sheer number of supported OS to choose from is not a value in itself. > Of course, choice has no value. Scalability has no value. Security has no value. Nothing has value.
From: Mladen Gogala on 22 Mar 2010 08:54 On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:10:41 +0100, Robert Klemme wrote: > Actually I believe "choice" is often overrated. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who would sacrifice choice for reliability deserve neither. -- http://mgogala.freehostia.com
From: Robert Klemme on 22 Mar 2010 13:55 On 03/21/2010 08:08 PM, Bob Jones wrote: > "Robert Klemme" <shortcutter(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:80n5p6F596U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 03/21/2010 04:49 PM, Bob Jones wrote: >>> "Robert Klemme" <shortcutter(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message >>> news:80mfq8Fo7U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> On 20.03.2010 23:20, Galen Boyer wrote: >>>>> Robert Klemme<shortcutter(a)googlemail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 03/19/2010 08:39 PM, Sybrand Bakker wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:26:44 -0400, Thomas Gagne >>>>>>> <TandGandGAGNE(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My background is Sybase& SqlServer. On both, due I'm sure to a >>>>>>>> common heritage, a stored procedure is capable of being as simple >>>>>>>> or complex as the programmer wants. Sometimes, all that is needed >>>>>>>> is a select statement. Sometimes even simple projections may >>>>>>>> require multiple steps to prepare the last SELECT. Additionally, >>>>>>>> stored procedures are capable of returning multiple result sets. I >>>>>>>> assumed, incorrectly, such a thing was not so complicated that it >>>>>>>> couldn't be easily done inside Oracl >>>>>>> Mickeysoft has never understood the Procedure concept, and ignored >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> formal defintiion and abused it to return a result set. >>>>>>> It seems like you belong to the class of sqlserver 'developers' which >>>>>>> is so narrow-minded they automatically reject everything done >>>>>>> differently by Oracle and start bashing Oracle for it. >>>>>>> Luckily sqlserver is incapable of being an enterprise class product, >>>>>>> just because of its poor architecture and vendor lock-in, so your >>>>>>> 'objections' are futile. >>>>>> I would not be too sure of that. SQL Sever isn't as bad as people are >>>>>> trying to make it look - and it's gaining ground, especially in the >>>>>> area of dealing with larger data sets. Maybe it's not as "enterprise >>>>>> class" as Oracle is (or is claimed to be) but the management tools >>>>>> with good graphical user interface were there before Oracle had Grid >>>>>> Control. Yes, I know - real DBA's use command line, but there are >>>>>> situations where a graphical visualization can greatly help. >>>>> One of the biggest winning arguments for Oracle, is that it run on >>>>> almost all platforms, MS products only run on one. >>>> Why is that an argument pro Oracle? >>>> >>> Very simple, choices. That is a major advantage. >> I beg to differ. Some do not need the choice, some are only looking for >> MS based products, some don't care about the OS... > > Saying I don't care about OS is like saying I don't care about cost, > features, scalability, and so forth. I have no doubt some companies think > Windows is the best solution for everything - at least M$ is one of them. Not at all. Saying one does not care about the OS can also mean that one is willing to pick the OS after the product one wants to use. With Windows, Solaris and Linux administrators in house the cost of maintaining an additional machine with either OS might be identical. But the cost of the application or the choice of applications available might differ dramatic. For such a company it is a totally reasonable approach to not look at the platforms something can run on in the first place but rather on the choice of applications. >> On the other hand, if you need to support multiple platforms you either >> need to make compromises to be able to adjust your product to all of >> them - or you need significant more development resources. > > Why? Oracle has already done that. You talk to the databases the same way > across all platforms. Do you also administer Oracle the same way on all platforms? Does it have the same performance characteristics on all platforms and the same bugs? Do all features work the same way on all platforms? Is it sufficient to test an application against Oracle on a single platform? >> The sheer number of supported OS to choose from is not a value in itself. > > Of course, choice has no value. Scalability has no value. Security has no > value. Nothing has value. I never said that choice or any of the other things you mention has no value. Why do I get the impression that you intentionally misquote me? robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
From: Thomas Gagne on 22 Mar 2010 17:25 Galen Boyer wrote: > <snip> > > One of the biggest winning arguments for Oracle, is that it run on > almost all platforms, MS products only run on one. > > That argument had traction in the 80s and 90s when hardware was expensive--especially minicomputers. Hardware prices have come down so much that being able to run on multiple operating systems (back when manufacturers had their own OSes) was a big plus. In the 21st century, the most expensive component of a system is its software, and the most expensive component of that is developer time, so "enterprise" had better find a new meaning. Programmer appeal is a strength of MySQL. Except for its screwy user scheme, it's easier to install and manage than either Oracle or Sybase, and includes many features near-and-dear to programmers. More and more, programmers are the ones sneaking technologies like PHP, Python, Linux, and now MySQL thru the IT back door. I haven't heard or read of anyone sneaking Oracle into a project because it's easy to install, use, administer, or program. My observation regarding Oracle, DB2, Sybase, and SqlServer is the need to compete for programmer mindshare, 'cause "enterprise" software is increasingly more about "enterprise" cost than "enterprise" features, which if not available today will be tomorrow for much less.
From: Shakespeare on 22 Mar 2010 17:53
Op 22-3-2010 22:25, Thomas Gagne schreef: > Galen Boyer wrote: >> <snip> >> >> One of the biggest winning arguments for Oracle, is that it run on >> almost all platforms, MS products only run on one. >> > That argument had traction in the 80s and 90s when hardware was > expensive--especially minicomputers. Hardware prices have come down so > much that being able to run on multiple operating systems (back when > manufacturers had their own OSes) was a big plus. > > In the 21st century, the most expensive component of a system is its > software, and the most expensive component of that is developer time, so > "enterprise" had better find a new meaning. > > Programmer appeal is a strength of MySQL. Except for its screwy user > scheme, it's easier to install and manage than either Oracle or Sybase, > and includes many features near-and-dear to programmers. More and more, > programmers are the ones sneaking technologies like PHP, Python, Linux, > and now MySQL thru the IT back door. I haven't heard or read of anyone > sneaking Oracle into a project because it's easy to install, use, > administer, or program. Well, I'm one of the sneaky Oracle pushers, pushing a standard edition one of XE environment with Apex wherever I can. Installing XE is running an executable on Windows or rpm on Linux. That's all. SE One is also a point and click installation and runs 'out of the box'. Even SE One Application Server runs out of the box after little more than 20 minutes, (at least, without patching..), including an Oracle Internet Directory LDAP Server and Oracle Portal. > My observation regarding Oracle, DB2, Sybase, and SqlServer is the need > to compete for programmer mindshare, 'cause "enterprise" software is > increasingly more about "enterprise" cost than "enterprise" features, > which if not available today will be tomorrow for much less. Yep. That's why there is also Standard Edition and Standard Edition One. Shakespeare |