Is Oracle A Legacy Technology?

玉面飞龙

http://www.rittman.net/archives/001130.html
看了好几次，每次都看不明白什么意思
但那些议论sql server的回复却很有意思


Great comments. Thank you! When James Morle and I started the BAARF Party (www.baarf.com) some time ago, sales of RAID-5 (and 4) SANs took off. When I wrote the paper "You Probably Don't Need RAC" some two years ago, sales of RAC really took off.

So when I claim Oracle to be legacy, I would buy Oracle stock now .

Nevertheless, I'd like to make a few comments, which hopefully will provoke some debate(s).

The young people coming out of the schools these days have been taught the Database Independent design principles. All they want - all they request - from a database is "persistent storage" (aka tables) and the ability to tune (aka indexes). No kidding.

As Jonathan Lewis points out in his chapter (10) of the Tales Of The OakTable book, database independent design will suffer if you either experience increased data volume or concurrency. Until then, it might work. If things go wrong, however, it's back to the database specific features.

But the real horror is that these days a lot of databases will be asked to do very silly things without anyone bothering, not even during a crises.

Relational Design: Ah yes. We've been hoping that people would do it the right way for the last 20 years or more. They don't. We don't. It has become an easy way of casting blame on anybody else than us (who don't do it). So instead of still hoping in vain for a change of mind all over the World, perhaps we ought to lower our blood pressure and accept that very, very few people are willing to do it this way? It's not going to become a universal thing to do, so let's be happy those few times when we actually see it at work. 20 years of not really seeing it ought to be enough for most .

Finally, it's interesting to ponder the "SQLserver is years behind" argument.

Yes, it is. The two big questions are: It's behind, but is it good enough? And do customers need all the new features of Oracle?

There's a very different mood/atmosphere in SQLserver Development than in Oracle Development these days. The SQLserver guys are trying to catch up. They're trying really hard, and it would appear they're succeeding. The wait interface stuff in Yukon (now called SQLserver 2005) is called Dynamic Management Views (DMV's) are would appear to be superior in several aspects to Oracle's wait interface.

SQLserver 2005 has got read consistency. They call it row versioning or something, but it's there, it can be turned on, and it seems to work.

So fine. 10g has got fantastic stuff. They've also got a lot of features that perhaps UPS or eBay need. But why should most DBA's care about all this new stuff if the system runs fine?

Enough.

best regards,

Mogens

Posted by: Mogens Nørgaard at November 17, 2004 11:26 PM