Re: Corporate Acceptance of Creating Views ?

Although I don't "outlaw" views, I haven't found a compelling reason to use them. I create search tables that would otherwise be views, and index them for optimum querying. Some tables are partially or totally denormalized, and some have every column indexed. I update the search tables nightly, weekly, or monthly, depending on business need. I don't have to worry about queries or indexing affecting OLTP, and query repsonse is excellent because there are fewer joins needed. Also, I don't have the expense of a creating a view instance for each user.

Of course, it really depends on the situation. We are not 7 x 24, so I have the luxury of running the search table updates overnight, the ad hoc queries are fairly predictable, and our security needs are pretty static.

Anyway, I'm not dogmatic about it, but I do need to be convinced that a view is the way to go in a particular situation.

"Thomas Kyte" <tkyte_at_us.oracle.com> wrote in message news:9rmeoj01bgk_at_drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <eQoD7.43362$C7.13166440_at_news02.optonline.net>, "jane" says...
> >
> >Is it true that in general corporate enviornment, the use of Views is
> >discouraged ? even frowned up ?
> >
> >I was working with this "seasoned" developer on developing reports, I am
new
> >to the Oracle enviornment
> >and she insisted that I should NOT use views if at all possible,
preferablly
> >not at all.
> >
> >"You should be able to get all the data you need with straight SQL...even
if
> >it have to go for pages !"
> >"...you are creating yet another dependency...it's another object that
has
> >to be maintained !......"
> >
> >The thing was with tools like Crystal Reports, it does not handle manual
SQL
> >very well (requires
> >a separate file to store the query)
> >
> >Is this true ? Was she full of bs ?
> >
> >thanks
> >jane
> >
> >
>
> I love views -- for the same reason packages are the only thing you should
use
> in real code (never a standalong procedure).
>
> Packages protect you from changes -- the SPECIFICATION won't change -- but
the
> implementation might (eg: you find a bug in the algorithm and fix it --
the
> interface didn't change -- same inputs and outputs but the mechanics
changed)
>
>
> Views are the same way. Underlying data structure changes (eg: someone
adds a
> column, denormalizes a table, splits a single table into two, whatever)
don't
> affect your CODE -- just your view. Consider the view a "specificiation",
fix
> the view -- you've fixed ALL pieces of code that use it.
>
> There are some people who say -- you should NEVER query a table. You
should
> always query a view. These people are never phased by a request to change
a
> column name or the order of columns in a table definition as it is as
trivial as
> dropping and recreating the view now.
>
> I might not go that far (but when asked to change a column name -- i will
rename
> the table, create a view and grant on the view, no one ever knows).....
but it
> shows there is a difference of opinion out there.
>
> Views are a tool, a programming construct. Anyone who "outlaws" them is
*wrong*
> and being very short sighted.
>
> --
> Thomas Kyte (tkyte@us.oracle.com) http://asktom.oracle.com/
> Expert one on one Oracle, programming techniques and solutions for Oracle.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861004826/
> Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle Corp
>
Received on Tue Oct 30 2001 - 13:05:52 CST