|
It is maybe the order I learned things, but I do not find Oracle that difficult (my first was DB2 on mainframe), but it seems to be less advanced than MSSQL these days, so can't see any reason to bother with in the first place (it even seems to me that most free RDBMS offer more than Oracle for some problems)...
So. No good words for Oracle...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: So. No good words for Oracle...
It's pretty hard to get some praise for Oracle it seems... 
|
|
|
|
|
I do see a number of benefits to Oracle.
It is really good at crunching really huge volumes.
It commands extraordinary rates for consultants
It takes a DBA to maintain it
I think it requires a larger hardware footprint.
It is an absolute f***ing pain in the arse to develop against.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: It is really good at crunching really huge volumes.
And crunching your bank account.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: It commands extraordinary rates for consultants
From your bank account.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: It takes a DBA to maintain it
Who also won't stop to pillage your bank account.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: I think it requires a larger hardware footprint.
I'm broke and can't pay for better hardware 
|
|
|
|
|
I've worked on a project which used both Oracle and SQL Server, the latter was easy and the former lost me whole weekends trying to get the right DB/Driver combinations.
Objectively both have their strong points. Oracle is a very powerful database system whilst SQL Server is more flexible, easier and so much cheaper. If I was to start a new project tomorrow and had to make the decision I'd choose SQL Server, but I'd go to another level of ease and just use Azure SQL because, you know, geo-replication in a few clicks, huge resiliency and easy scale.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
|
|
|
|
|
dazfuller wrote: and the former lost me whole weekends trying to get the right DB/Driver combinations.
I had some 32/64 bits problem. Basically, because I installed a 64 bits client another 32 bits client refused to work 
dazfuller wrote: I'd go to another level of ease and just use Azure SQL
Oracle in the cloud? Now you have two problems 
|
|
|
|
|
Oracle in the cloud, who would be that mad! I mean SQL Server in the cloud, Azure SQL
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
|
|
|
|
|
Take the time to learn Oracle properly and you'll be amazed by just how versatile it is. I've been going back and fourth between Oracle and SQL Server DBs (as well as the new "free" spin-offs) for several years now in a number of different environments, sure each have their merits but if I had to pick one it would be Oracle every day of the week.
Now I'm speaking purely from a DB development standpoint, Oracle is much faster, easily scalable and has far more practical, and TBH powerful, functions and program-ability features than any other DB I've come across so far. Yes I'm talking RDBMS.
It's performance tuning capabilities are phenomenal. But again I stress, you need to take the time to learn it properly, those people who are "SQL experts" will always complain about how Oracle is so unnecessarily complex blah blah blah, it's because it was never designed for someone with no development experience to write basic reports on.
|
|
|
|
|
We were forced to Upgrade from MSSQL to Oracle 7 in order to land a BIG contract. During the process, we found MSSQL Allowed Duplicate keys (Identity Column) to exist. It boggled our mind, it caused us to realize we lost data.
From that point forward, I fell in love with Oracle. It was way faster, way more stable. And a bit more complicated. I bemoaned the lack of Autoincrement fields and having to write triggers and use sequences, UNTIL I learned to just do it the Oracle way, and everything got easier, and scaled pretty well...
I became a bit of an Oracle Bigot for 10+ years. Until they recently started "License Auditing". Now I have no problem paying for the tools we use. But I watched companies have to full license a development oracle machine (outside of production), and a hot backup server (they want the DB shut off until failover, or pay).
For a small DB, you can use the free XE version which is good. But go beyond that and the costs stack up for smaller companies.
Friends at Siemens said they will NEVER start a new Oracle Project because of the fines they paid.
They will eventually phase most of it out.
I am of a similar mindset. I have no interest, after 2 decades of Oracle Specialty of starting a new Oracle Project. MSSQL has gotten a lot better (transactions still grind me, reads being blocked by a write, 2 people can't update master-detail tables at the same time without lock issues)...
But I can't justify Extortion...
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk 10389821 wrote: we found MSSQL Allowed Duplicate keys (Identity Column) to exist
I'm not sure what version that was, but that's certainly not possible now 
SQL Server does allow you to not specify a key though, in which case it IS possible to insert duplicate rows (I really can't recommend it).
Kirk 10389821 wrote: But I can't justify Extortion...
In a time that lots of databases are free/open-source 
What always struck me with Oracle is that they're arrogant. They're the most expensive. Their security chief wrote that letter[^] basically saying "we know everything, you know nothing". Then there's the whole Oracle vs. Google lawsuit about Java while they're letting the Java EE platform die a slow death...
Maybe they're not worse than Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc., but it sure seems that way (with Apple being a close 2nd)
|
|
|
|
|
Oracle is an excellent database system but it is hardly for the "faint of heart".
It is in many respects overly complex and learning to use it efficiently can be a hurdle. However, Oracle was also not designed to be used at the departmental level of application development. It is for all intents and purposes a database designed for enormous transaction processing, which it does quite well.
It is also designed for very heavy database intensive organizations that require speed and the complexities that come with it.
Organizations that have been doing well with SQL Server will often find the move to Oracle quite arduous and if the organization is a small or medium sized company they may find the effort not to be worth it.
Oracle installations also require experienced DBAs to manage and fine tune it. It is not simply a developer's database.
If you need the capabilities that Oracle provides, the database cannot be beat. However, if you are looking to simply upgrade from a good SQL Server implementation the costs will most likely not be justified.
For the majority of applications you will develop you will most likely not need the power of Oracle unless of course you are working in such an organization that does.
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
Did you try CONNECT BY queries in Oracle? So much cooler than the equivalent way of doing it in SQL Server with Common Table Expressions.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I did! Pretty cool, but it requires a shift in thinking
|
|
|
|
|
Besides Windows, it runs on Unix / Linux (if that's your bag).
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's a microscope and not telescope. They look like amoebas. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
The universe is a giant fractal. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
if you type a word one key off, google corrects it - go see jrtr[^]!
Either clever or they just have too much time [and money]
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
you were just lucky 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: Either clever or they just have too much time [and money]
Both.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Man, I am showing my age! When first read the title, I thought of Visual FoxPro
|
|
|
|
|
You and me both, brother  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I admit - it was only because I just spent 6 (long, torturous, baldness producing, "why did they do THAT!") months converting Visual FoxPro apps to C#
|
|
|
|
|
What's so clever about it?
You got a dictionary, you do a lookup on a soundex and present the top 1 as "did you mean..". It's not like it is something new.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
... because who pays attention to the praise/rant threads for a tool they're not using at the time? (Not me obviously.)
Anyway I need something that's touch friendly (our target's a tablet, but not Android or iOS or W10 apps due to concerns about hardware interfacing and not suitable for a general app store + sideloading being a pita). My immediate needs are for:
0) Configurable keyboard and numberpads - the customer doesn't want to use the generic windows onscreen keyboard because of extraneous keys around the edge needed for Windows but not their app.
1) A grid control with better sizing than the default MS one: Specifically being able to resize with larger fonts as stretched horizontally instead of wider lines without nuking the vertical scrollbar. I'll also need something like the expanded detail view in the MS one, or support for heterogeneous rows that I can use to add optional additional metadata below some items.
2) A textblock that would scale the text and insert line breaks to best fill the available space inside buttons would be nice as well although I'm pretty sure I could build this from scratch if I needed to.
3) A pricing model that's either FOSS, flat rate, or pay per developer. I've been told if the price is reasonable getting my new employer to pay shouldn't be a problem, the customer has stated they don't want something that's pay per install even if only a few dollars. If paid a trial/demo mode version of the library would probably be helpful if paid here as well so the customer could at least build and fiddle with code drops locally.
4) Good support from the developer and source access without breaking the bank are desirable on my end.
5) I also want a puppy, or a pony, or maybe a unicorn. Pretty please mommy. I know it's not too much to ask.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
