Things I learned from history: Just before things die they expand. If I was
just starting out I think I would be looking for an Oracle group and not a
database group. I think we would be better off staying as an Oracle group.
I'm pretty confident that whatever issue I have somebody here knows the answer.
Donald Freeman
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Robert Freeman
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Tim Gorman; ORACLE-L
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?
Tim,
My two cents… and of course, some of this depends on how much time you really
want to invest in all of this… J
There is a lot of benefit in maintaining the Oracle specific focus of ORACLE-L:
– Technology specific content means that there is less sifting through
the “cross-pollination” of topics to get to the technology specific question
you have. Purity is important I think.
– I would suspect that technology specific lists will attract those who
specialize in those specific technologies. A pure stack is probably likely to
get more authoritive answers than a watered down stack.
o I’ve seen technology neutral boards/lists often provide inaccurate
information posted by folks who are not spending a lot of time with the
technology they offer answers on. I think you would see a lot more “I think” or
“I guess” kinds of answers.
o I’ve also seen technology neutral boards/lists have holy wars about the
various stacks, that are no fun. Granted, many of those threads eventually get
policed.
– In many cases, standards, processes, terminology and other things
differ across stacks. This could confuse beginners. Things in the Oracle world
change fast enough – multiply that several times for each additional stack you
add to the mailing list.
– You have beginners here often, and I’d be concerned that
cross-technology/stack posting could get confusing for them.
– With all of the stacks, there is such depth and breadth that I’d be
afraid a less focused mailing list would become less useful.
– A less focused technology list will be harder to search for the answer
you are looking for.
This reasoning extends to other active and emerging database stacks, they
should have their own lists.
Then the question that comes to my mind is, can we have our cake and eat it
too?
Why not source, from these DB specific lists, a consolidated and searchable
list from all database specific lists? Something like DBALL-L. I would think
that it would be easy to automate the copying of threads to such a list? This
would be helpful for those who want to look for topics related to more than one
stack.
I am debating if one should allow posts in the DBALL-L list… That would require
some level of moderation to ensure that posts don’t really belong in a database
specific list, though I do suggest a possible DBINTEGRATION-L list that could
be the place to post cross-platform questions.
Second, (just thinking aloud here) with respect to social media - Is there some
way that we can integrate lists like ORACLE-L into social media platforms like
twitter, facebook and linked in (and maybe that’s already done in some way – I
have largely removed myself from social media – I just was finding the signal
to noise ratio - inefficient)?
Is there some way to integrate the technologies so that we can actually improve
the usability of all of them? Perhaps such a thing is more effort that it’s
worth…. I just wonder if there is an ORACLE-L post, if there should not be some
related tweet that goes out to the ORACLE-L twitter subscribers with maybe a
subject and link to the post (just thinking aloud here – there could be great
arguments not to do this). Or a Linked in daily post with the digest contents
of Oracle-L…?
Along with ORACLE-L or MSSQL-L I think there is a good argument for a few other
lists? (depending on how many lists one wants to have/manage).
For example:
– DBALL-L – Integrated list of all *-L lists for those who love super
cross-pollination.
– DBINTEGRATION-L - List services for those trying to integrate stacks. I
think such a list could certainly be cross-stack.
– DBMIGRATION-L – List services for those migrating between database
stacks.
– DBCLOUD-L – List services specific to database cloud offerings
– DATASCIENCE-L – List services related to data science topics.
– DBREPLICATION-L – List services related to replication services like
Golden Gate or Shareplex
– DBRETIREEARLY-L – Self-explanatory – Currently among my favorite list
ideas.
I guess, in part, all of this really boils down to what is the need of the
community? What will drive them to use the tool that has been so wonderful in
the past – Namely Oracle-L.
My thoughts…. VMMV….. Cheers!!
RF
Robert G. Freeman
Deliverer of Data
Businessolver
Cell: 801-703-3405
Anon: Science. If you don’t make mistakes, you’re doing it wrong. If you don’t
correct those mistakes, you’re doing it really wrong. If can’t accept that
you’re mistaken, you’re not doing it at all.
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Stefan Knecht
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:48 AM
To: Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ORACLE-L <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?
Personally, my vote would be oracle-only. Perhaps add a second list maintained
with the same style that is for other DBMS.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Zahir Mohideen <zahir.dba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim -
it is a great idea to expand oracle_l to database_l .
My question is , if we were to expand , are we restricting the
discussions to RDBMS only or include NOSQL dbs as well.
Usually , we ( I am also in SQL server side ) communicate in Twitter
with #sqlhelp tag .
- Zahir
Zahir Mohideen
http://mfzahirdba.blogspot.com/
Nothing so GREAT was achieved without enthusiasm
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>> So, of course, I ask Oracle people about it. :)
This thread is a good argument for expanding ORACLE-L to
DATABASE-L.
There is a vibrant technical community in SQL Server and it is
long past time that these communities cross-pollinated better.
As this thread shows, it isn't that one or the other DBMS is
better, but they can be different in subtle ways which can trip up even the
most experienced of us.
And, as this thread shows, many of us are tasked with
administering both DBMS packages, in addition to PostgreSQL and MySQL.
I'm proud to cite my wife, Kellyn <http://dbakevlar.com/> , as
an example of this breed of renaissance geek, as she is currently president of
both the Rocky Mountain Oracle Users Group <http://rmoug.org> and of the
Denver SQL Server users group <http://denversql.org> , and she is likely soon
to become the first person in the world to achieve both Oracle ACE Director
(now alumnae) and Microsoft MVP recognition.
One noticeable difference between the two communities is age.
On average, Kellyn and I find attendees at SQL Server users group events to be
about 10 years younger than Oracle users group events, based on unscientific
eyeball observation. Also, the SQL Server users group community has a much
larger percentage of women attendees and speakers (i.e. about 40% for SQL to
about 20% for Oracle).
As a result, while the ORACLE-L list has been yakking along
happily here on email for the past 20 years, the SQL Server community has been
largely conversing on Twitter. Both communities blog at about the same rate
and volume (in my opinion), and both communities seem to use LinkedIn to the
same degree (in my opinion). So, the biggest difference in online
communication style seems to be email vs tweets.
So, if we were to go through the effort of changing from
ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L (leaving aliases from ORACLE-L to point to DATABASE-L so
folks can still find us), we would find adoption by the SQL Server community to
be slow, because they would have a struggle paying attention to, and responding
to, a high-volume email list. There are undoubtedly good ways to integrate
email and Twitter, and I'm sure they can be quite seamless, but the first
question is: what do y'all think?
How do you personally feel about discussing and learning about
SQL Server as well as Oracle? Would it enhance your prospects?
On 3/15/18 07:23, Rich J wrote:
On 2018/03/15 07:34, Jeff Smith wrote:
Brent is a friend and an ex-coworker. He wanted
to share the background of this customer's scenario, in case it would help you
with yours.
I let Brent know some folks were
having...fun...with his take on autocommit.
Jeff
Heh heh heh, I can only imagine. The difference
on optimistic vs pessimistic concurrency nailed it though - the default combo
of optimistic & implicit transactions makes sense in Oracle, and the default of
pessimistic and automatic transactions makes sense in SQL Server. It's when you
change only one of those two settings that you're screwed.
The blog post stemmed from an app that had been
written by SQL Server people, and then an Oracle guy came in and made a few
changes. He switched to implicit transactions without understanding that
everybody was doing single-line inserts/updates all over the place in code, not
bothering to set transactions. He didn't understand the impact of what he was
doing. (Not an Oracle jab by any means - the guy was well-meaning but just not
prepared.)
We got called in because performance went
straight into the toilet. Even worse, rollbacks were rolling back completely
unrelated transactions, and nobody knew why, hahaha.
Ah, that context adds a lot to the assertion. I still
disagree that autocommit is a good practice for applications, whether it's
Oracle or SQL Server, but I understand where Brent's coming from.
And my intent wasn't to have "fun", but a sanity check
for myself. IT changes constantly outside of my narrow focus, and as I've been
following Brent's blog for years, that entry offers an opinion that is
completely backwards of my understanding of how any modern RDBMS should work.
So, of course, I ask Oracle people about it. :)
Thanks all for the sanity check!
Rich
--
//
zztat - The Next-Gen Oracle Performance Monitoring and Reaction Framework!
Visit us at zztat.net | Support our Indiegogo campaign at igg.me/at/zztat |
@zztat_oracle
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
