Re: 2 Oracle doubts

"Sybrand Bakker" <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:e343ivcvcbvpjvomjkmnpttle43449541n_at_4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:07:49 GMT, "Maximus" <qweqwe_at_qwqwewq.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I implement simple key/value lookups via associative arrays, this can be
> >implemented using user defined array types for a table column, an object
> >attribute, or a user function... quite flexible and very efficient.
>
> So how about 'read consistency'. You are using a database, don't you,
> not some 3GL crap application, resorting to hacks like described
> above.

Not everything needs to be stored or accessed from a database table, this is a purist approach and not necessarily the optimal solution for everything (though Oracle seems to think so;-)

> Don't you think your approach is easily made redundant by putting the
> affected tables in the KEEP buffer pool?

Caching speeds up any operation that involves I/O, regardless of what. Having static lookups defined in memory via associative arrays avoids disk I/O period, except to initially populate the array if doing so from a table. Associative arrays also avoid the overhead of processing joins.

> Right now, when any of the records changes, how do you re-read the
> table in your associative array?
> O, you don't?

Given the above example of state abbreviations, were talking static data that will not need to be refreshed any time in the near future. If it does, a trigger can handle it the refresh if the array is being populated from a table. Received on Fri Jul 25 2003 - 16:25:07 CDT