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
