Re: Interesting papers

mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote in message news:<8a529bb.0406181314.493b6c36_at_posting.google.com>...
>
> The interesting part was how they interpreted manageability and ease
> of use. I totally agree: you can simplify the product if you throw
> away parasitic features (together with the code that supports them).
> If that kind code cleaning is not done, than the product becomes
> bloatware. And code refactoring can't be achieved without streamlining
> the interface language -- SQL. Removing redundancies, inconsitencies
> (eg. "not in" vs. "not exist"), and plain nonsence (eg. ANSII SQL
> standard join syntax).
>
> "Manageability" perspective today, however, turns out to be more code
> that have to police the existing junk. More auxilairy structures, and
> some background processes taking the resources and becoming new
> sources of bugs. How is it more productive when DBA have to comprehend
> all this additional burden?

I guess this explains it...do "strategic matters" require thinking these days? LOL.

http://www.computerworld.com/databasetopics/data/story/0,10801,92660,00.html

If users ran into a problem with a SQL statement in previous versions of Oracle's database, "you would play with it and try to work your way through to figure out which solution was best," [DBA] Floss said. "These [new features] do the work for you, so you don't have to spend the time trying all the different scenarios."

Floss noted that the automated tools built into 10g still require IT staffers to make the final decisions on code changes and other modifications. Instead of replacing database administrators, the new technology frees them from tedious tasks and lets them focus on more strategic matters, she said

"There are two perceptions that are no longer true—that [the database] is expensive and complex," said Ken Jacobs, vice president of product strategy and server technologies at Oracle Received on Sun Jun 20 2004 - 08:40:04 CEST