October 3, 2017 at 8:21 am
Having to work with date manipulation in oracle makes me want to punch kittens. Well not really, just whoever decided to not make a single user friendly date function.
October 3, 2017 at 9:35 am
Jeff Moden - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:08 AMEric M Russell - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:48 AMI've worked with Oracle in the past as well, and I can adapt to differences in syntax. However, a harder pill to swallow is that in Oracle, '' IS NULL.Everything seems normal the first few days you're in the Oracle universe, the table definitions, data, and SELECT statements all look essentially the same. But then you start getting back strange results that are inexplicably missing rows that you know are there, and that's when you realize that an empty string value in the Oracle universe is equivalent to NULL. It's like an episode of the Twilight Zone. :blink:
Boy howdy! There ARE some nuances. Imagine the surprise I got when I used an "&" in a block comment and Oracle came back with a popup asking me for a value for a parameter.
Then again and except for the term FOR EACH to get all rows of an Insert, Update, or Delete, I REALLY like the way triggers work in Oracle especially with the ability to do a true BEFORE instead of an INSTEAD OF. I also like the idea of making parameters in stored procedures based on what the datatype of something else is instead of having to make a UDT.
I don't, however, like the idea of Global Reference cursors nor the idea that you can't overload a variable when needed. I also deplore the fact that UPDATE in Oracle doesn't have a FROM clause.
I did like being able to define parameters and variables based off the data type of the columns that stored procedure would access. Makes keeping the data types consistent so much easier.
October 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm
I agree about being able to assign type and size of variables based on the table.
Cheers
October 3, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Sean Lange - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:28 AMJeff Moden - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:02 AMActually, having worked with both Oracle and SQL Server, I'll have to say that anyone that says one is better than the other is probably a bit out of line because, like anything else in this business, "It Depends".The DML for Oracle and SQL Server is quite different. Sure, the ANSI code in both is quite similar but that's about it. I suspect the only reason that I prefer SQL Server is because, when it comes to serious database work, that's what I cut my teeth on. If I had started on Oracle, I'd probably prefer that for the same reason.
Also and contrary to popular belief and just like SQL Server, Oracle runs a whole lot better if you write set-based code instead of falling back on loops and cursors.
I actually did my first database work with Oracle and I found it obtuse and user hostile. The setup code requires a degree in obscure syntax and that stupid little window you were forced to use for queries was painfully small. And the fact that the UI was written in java just made it painfully slow. I realize the IDE has matured considerably since then but I long ago moved over to sql server and never looked back.
I used Toad when working with Oracle. A very robust tool that could even help you tune your queries. Toad for SQL Server lacks (have tried it lately) that capability.
October 3, 2017 at 1:50 pm
Lynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:34 PMSean Lange - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:28 AMJeff Moden - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:02 AMActually, having worked with both Oracle and SQL Server, I'll have to say that anyone that says one is better than the other is probably a bit out of line because, like anything else in this business, "It Depends".The DML for Oracle and SQL Server is quite different. Sure, the ANSI code in both is quite similar but that's about it. I suspect the only reason that I prefer SQL Server is because, when it comes to serious database work, that's what I cut my teeth on. If I had started on Oracle, I'd probably prefer that for the same reason.
Also and contrary to popular belief and just like SQL Server, Oracle runs a whole lot better if you write set-based code instead of falling back on loops and cursors.
I actually did my first database work with Oracle and I found it obtuse and user hostile. The setup code requires a degree in obscure syntax and that stupid little window you were forced to use for queries was painfully small. And the fact that the UI was written in java just made it painfully slow. I realize the IDE has matured considerably since then but I long ago moved over to sql server and never looked back.
I used Toad when working with Oracle. A very robust tool that could even help you tune your queries. Toad for SQL Server lacks (have tried it lately) that capability.
Not sure if Toad existed when I worked with Oracle. If it did I had never heard of them. We used the native Oracle interface which had a query window and result all in one. Sort of like SSMS but it was awful because it was written in java and was super crazy slow to use. The queries were fine but the GUI was horrific and user hostile at best.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
October 3, 2017 at 2:28 pm
Sean Lange - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:50 PMLynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:34 PMSean Lange - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:28 AMJeff Moden - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:02 AMActually, having worked with both Oracle and SQL Server, I'll have to say that anyone that says one is better than the other is probably a bit out of line because, like anything else in this business, "It Depends".The DML for Oracle and SQL Server is quite different. Sure, the ANSI code in both is quite similar but that's about it. I suspect the only reason that I prefer SQL Server is because, when it comes to serious database work, that's what I cut my teeth on. If I had started on Oracle, I'd probably prefer that for the same reason.
Also and contrary to popular belief and just like SQL Server, Oracle runs a whole lot better if you write set-based code instead of falling back on loops and cursors.
I actually did my first database work with Oracle and I found it obtuse and user hostile. The setup code requires a degree in obscure syntax and that stupid little window you were forced to use for queries was painfully small. And the fact that the UI was written in java just made it painfully slow. I realize the IDE has matured considerably since then but I long ago moved over to sql server and never looked back.
I used Toad when working with Oracle. A very robust tool that could even help you tune your queries. Toad for SQL Server lacks (have tried it lately) that capability.
Not sure if Toad existed when I worked with Oracle. If it did I had never heard of them. We used the native Oracle interface which had a query window and result all in one. Sort of like SSMS but it was awful because it was written in java and was super crazy slow to use. The queries were fine but the GUI was horrific and user hostile at best.
Toad has been around for at least 20 years. I tested an early version of Toad for SQL Server in the mid 90's and it sucked at the time. Used Toad for Oracle at Honeywell. Convinved the powers that be that Toad was a superior tool to what they were using shortly after getting there. If I have to go back to working with Oracle, I want Toad.
October 3, 2017 at 2:34 pm
Lynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 2:28 PMSean Lange - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:50 PMLynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:34 PMSean Lange - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:28 AMJeff Moden - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:02 AMActually, having worked with both Oracle and SQL Server, I'll have to say that anyone that says one is better than the other is probably a bit out of line because, like anything else in this business, "It Depends".The DML for Oracle and SQL Server is quite different. Sure, the ANSI code in both is quite similar but that's about it. I suspect the only reason that I prefer SQL Server is because, when it comes to serious database work, that's what I cut my teeth on. If I had started on Oracle, I'd probably prefer that for the same reason.
Also and contrary to popular belief and just like SQL Server, Oracle runs a whole lot better if you write set-based code instead of falling back on loops and cursors.
I actually did my first database work with Oracle and I found it obtuse and user hostile. The setup code requires a degree in obscure syntax and that stupid little window you were forced to use for queries was painfully small. And the fact that the UI was written in java just made it painfully slow. I realize the IDE has matured considerably since then but I long ago moved over to sql server and never looked back.
I used Toad when working with Oracle. A very robust tool that could even help you tune your queries. Toad for SQL Server lacks (have tried it lately) that capability.
Not sure if Toad existed when I worked with Oracle. If it did I had never heard of them. We used the native Oracle interface which had a query window and result all in one. Sort of like SSMS but it was awful because it was written in java and was super crazy slow to use. The queries were fine but the GUI was horrific and user hostile at best.
Toad has been around for at least 20 years. I tested an early version of Toad for SQL Server in the mid 90's and it sucked at the time. Used Toad for Oracle at Honeywell. Convinved the powers that be that Toad was a superior tool to what they were using shortly after getting there. If I have to go back to working with Oracle, I want Toad.
It was close to 20 years ago...late 90s for sure and possibly 2000-01. I had not heard of it at the time.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
October 3, 2017 at 2:37 pm
Thing is, then anyway, TOAD wasn't free, Oracle didn't have a good query/result interface as part of the package. I used to use a linked server to query Oracle and that worked out pretty well.
Cheers
October 3, 2017 at 3:10 pm
jfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 2:37 PMThing is, then anyway, TOAD wasn't free, Oracle didn't have a good query/result interface as part of the package. I used to use a linked server to query Oracle and that worked out pretty well.
You are correct, Toad isn't free. When working with Oracle it is worth the cost.
October 3, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Heh... such fond memories. I don't know how well it works now but we used to have a running joke about TOAD for Oracle... it was appropriately named because it croaked a lot (Blue screens, lockups, etc, etc).
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 3, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Lynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 3:10 PMjfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 2:37 PMThing is, then anyway, TOAD wasn't free, Oracle didn't have a good query/result interface as part of the package. I used to use a linked server to query Oracle and that worked out pretty well.You are correct, Toad isn't free. When working with Oracle it is worth the cost.
True, but equally so is the fact that when you buy the 'Rolls-Royce" of database products, it isn't too much to ask to have quality query tools.TOAD should have never been something anyone needed. I've always said that getting data out of Oracle is like getting blood from a rock and nobody has proven me right more that Oracle.
I still have the all-glass Chess set they gave me. I would have rather had a good query interface.
Cheers
October 4, 2017 at 3:41 am
jfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:04 PMLynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 3:10 PMjfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 2:37 PMThing is, then anyway, TOAD wasn't free, Oracle didn't have a good query/result interface as part of the package. I used to use a linked server to query Oracle and that worked out pretty well.You are correct, Toad isn't free. When working with Oracle it is worth the cost.
True, but equally so is the fact that when you buy the 'Rolls-Royce" of database products, it isn't too much to ask to have quality query tools.TOAD should have never been something anyone needed. I've always said that getting data out of Oracle is like getting blood from a rock and nobody has proven me right more that Oracle.
I still have the all-glass Chess set they gave me. I would have rather had a good query interface.
People are looking for cosmetic items not on the quality and stablIty. When dealing with large volume these SSMS is not to fit to holds data in its grid if it reaches more than 2GB
October 4, 2017 at 3:49 am
kannan_egd - Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:41 AMjfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:04 PMLynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 3:10 PMjfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 2:37 PMThing is, then anyway, TOAD wasn't free, Oracle didn't have a good query/result interface as part of the package. I used to use a linked server to query Oracle and that worked out pretty well.You are correct, Toad isn't free. When working with Oracle it is worth the cost.
True, but equally so is the fact that when you buy the 'Rolls-Royce" of database products, it isn't too much to ask to have quality query tools.TOAD should have never been something anyone needed. I've always said that getting data out of Oracle is like getting blood from a rock and nobody has proven me right more that Oracle.
I still have the all-glass Chess set they gave me. I would have rather had a good query interface.
People are looking for cosmetic items not on the quality and stablIty. When dealing with large volume these SSMS is not to fit to holds data in its grid if it reaches more than 2GB
Microsoft Data Quality service is recently provided by Microsoft with sql server 2012 version for Data quality reports. This is one of the worst tools and not worth for single dollar. The intention of database is to hold and process the data effectively. When it comes to very large volume data people never worry about cosmetic items instead they are thing about scalabllity, maintainability, flexibility, reliability. I worked in both databases i too agree Microsoft is good in presentation and UI interfaces because they are owing the office tools so it is very easy for them. But when come to enterprise class solution's in data warehouse Microsoft needs to learn lot of good things from oracle to improve their database products.
October 4, 2017 at 3:53 am
kannan_egd - Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:41 AMjfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:04 PMLynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 3:10 PMjfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 2:37 PMThing is, then anyway, TOAD wasn't free, Oracle didn't have a good query/result interface as part of the package. I used to use a linked server to query Oracle and that worked out pretty well.You are correct, Toad isn't free. When working with Oracle it is worth the cost.
True, but equally so is the fact that when you buy the 'Rolls-Royce" of database products, it isn't too much to ask to have quality query tools.TOAD should have never been something anyone needed. I've always said that getting data out of Oracle is like getting blood from a rock and nobody has proven me right more that Oracle.
I still have the all-glass Chess set they gave me. I would have rather had a good query interface.
People are looking for cosmetic items not on the quality and stablIty. When dealing with large volume these SSMS is not to fit to holds data in its grid if it reaches more than 2GB
That isn't a limitation of SQL Server though, that is a limitation of a tool used to interact with SQL Server (and you don't even have to use it; it's not even available on Linux/Docker). Also, would you really want to output 2GB of data into a GUI? I suspect the answer is no. If you're going to be returning that much data, you'd have an extract process, not display it on screen. I have a textfile on my PC that's over 500MB and Notepad++ has a fit when I open it. Why? Because it's a lot of data to try and load into your PC's resources. It's not Notepad++'s fault, it's just the user being silly trying to load that much raw text.
If Oracle has a tool where you have display 4GB of data, great! But why would you want to...? I would hazard a guess that your PC probably doesn't have more than 16GB of RAM, so are you happy with your Oracle GUI using about 30% of your resources? I wouldn't be.
Thom~
Excuse my typos and sometimes awful grammar. My fingers work faster than my brain does.
Larnu.uk
October 4, 2017 at 4:08 am
Thom A - Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:53 AMkannan_egd - Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:41 AMjfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:04 PMLynn Pettis - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 3:10 PMjfogel - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 2:37 PMThing is, then anyway, TOAD wasn't free, Oracle didn't have a good query/result interface as part of the package. I used to use a linked server to query Oracle and that worked out pretty well.You are correct, Toad isn't free. When working with Oracle it is worth the cost.
True, but equally so is the fact that when you buy the 'Rolls-Royce" of database products, it isn't too much to ask to have quality query tools.TOAD should have never been something anyone needed. I've always said that getting data out of Oracle is like getting blood from a rock and nobody has proven me right more that Oracle.
I still have the all-glass Chess set they gave me. I would have rather had a good query interface.
People are looking for cosmetic items not on the quality and stablIty. When dealing with large volume these SSMS is not to fit to holds data in its grid if it reaches more than 2GB
That isn't a limitation of SQL Server though, that is a limitation of a tool used to interact with SQL Server (and you don't even have to use it; it's not even available on Linux/Docker). Also, would you really want to output 2GB of data into a GUI? I suspect the answer is no. If you're going to be returning that much data, you'd have an extract process, not display it on screen. I have a textfile on my PC that's over 500MB and Notepad++ has a fit when I open it. Why? Because it's a lot of data to try and load into your PC's resources. It's not Notepad++'s fault, it's just the user being silly trying to load that much raw text.
If Oracle has a tool where you have display 4GB of data, great! But why would you want to...? I would hazard a guess that your PC probably doesn't have more than 16GB of RAM, so are you happy with your Oracle GUI using about 30% of your resources? I wouldn't be.
Yes, I too agree, but when comes to large volume data handling still SQL server is standing behind oracle and SQL server is not a true enterprise and not suitable for handling large volume of data. The best example is table partitioning SQL server still relays on range but Oracle have multiple choices, even multiple column partitioning is not at all available in SQL server. Ours is a healthcare database and we are using SQL server 2016 enterprise and we recently migrated from 2012 now we are migrating our database to oracle because of this partitioning limitation. we are planning to deal multi state data for our product for this we are looking for list and range wise and multi column partitioning but SQL server is not at all fit for this, many experts came for us to provide suggestions to make architectural changes but it requires lot of resources and may break the functionality so we still looking for composite partitioning it is not at all available in Microsoft and Microsoft has no plan for this feature development.
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 90 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply