Re: referencing objects

"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_www.com> writes:

> "Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:954353669.2363.1.pluto.d4ee154e_at_news.demon.nl...
> >
> > strongly disagree about that. It is extreemly BAD practice to do that.
> > You are loosing transparency. Whenever you want to maintain a development
> > and production scheme, you can easily do that by using private and public
> > synonyms.
> > When you hardcode the schema owner, you'r stuck forever, and you end up
> > setting up a second istance, which makes things only more difficult.
>
> And use of public synonyms is a performance dog, as I'm sure you'll be
> aware.
>
> For a statement that refers to a single table only, the CPU usage during the
> parse phase is approximately 1:2:4 for a fully-qualified reference, a
> private synonym and a public synonym respectively.

Sorry, 4 x 0 is still 0. Or more accurately, 4 times a small constant is still only going to be a small constant. For DSS systems parse times are irrelevant, and OLTP applications should only be parsing their queries once and executing them millions of times.

The cost of the parse time should be irrelevant either way. It's certainly not worth sacrificing hard coding schema names into your code which will make it impossible to develop without each developer having his or her own instance to work on.

-- 
greg