Re: The reserved word "ACCESS" in a field list of a PL SQL Query

Hans Forbrich <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message news:<NT71d.201284$X12.170769_at_edtnps84>...
> Lee wrote:
>
> > In defense of the column ('field') named "Access" this came over from
> > the conversion of the MS Sql db that we are in the process of porting.
>
> You make use of the term 'porting'. Does that imply you are using an
> intelligent analysis to translate the functionality from one environment,
> or does that mean you are simply defaulting to "copy everything across -
> it's SQL, isn't it?"
>
> If you are truly doing an intelligent port, renaming the column to avoid the
> reserved word issue is going to be a small thing.
>
> If, on the other hand, you are assuming that SQL Server and Oracle work the
> same because they both [supposedly] implement SQL, you may be in for a
> surprise. *That surprise is well documented throughout Thomas Kyte's
> 'Effective Oracle By Design'* (Hint: first symptoms usually include
> max'ing out at 3-5 users or significant performance issues, or deadlocks.)
>
> /Hans

The database was originally converted into our development invironment usings Oracles Migration Workbench. This basically left us only with our table structures and data that were usefull.

This is where the whole "Access" question came up. The MW converted the field toe "Access_" along with several others. Becuase of this change it required us to spend time reviewing the column set included in each of our queries in more detail then we were expecting.

All queries, stored procs, packages, functions, triggers etc all had/have to be re-written. For the conversion of these items we are attempting to implement as much of Thomas Kyte's "Design" logic as possible.

Thanks
Lee Received on Mon Sep 13 2004 - 10:01:45 CDT