Oracle 10G
Dirk Moolman
Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and about it's grid computing capabilities.
Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is this something completely different ?
Dirk Moolman
Database and Unix Administrator
MXGROUP
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Kierkegaard
________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed 1700 Spam messages and set aside 372 Newsletters for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE! www.ellaforspam.com
sending to informix-list
Obnoxio The Clown
>
> Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and
> about it's grid computing capabilities.
>
>
>
> Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is
> this something completely different ?
It's something completely different. XPS actually works, for a start.
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Daniel Morgan
> Dirk Moolman wrote:
>
>
>>Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and
>>about it's grid computing capabilities.
>>
>>
>>
>>Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is
>>this something completely different ?
>
>
> It's something completely different. XPS actually works, for a start.
XPS may work ... but so does 10g grid as I happily proved to more
than 60 people last week: Wednesday evening to the Puget Sound
Oracle Users Group and Thursday evening to my Advanced Oracle class
at the University of Washington.
Comparing grid with XPS is like comparing a Informix database with
an Excel spreadsheet. While they may both run on computers that is
pretty much where the similarities begin and end. If you would like
to come to Seattle on March 20th for Oracle Technology Day I would
be happy to give you a full tour including ASM and ADDM.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damo...@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Captain Pedantic
news:1078078329.562727@yasure...
> ... but so does 10g grid as I happily proved to more
> than 60 people last week: Wednesday evening to the Puget Sound
> Oracle Users Group and Thursday evening to my Advanced Oracle class
> at the University of Washington.
Do you keep your trumpet close by, Daniel, for those frequent occasions that
you're going to need it?
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> Dirk Moolman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and
>>>about it's grid computing capabilities.
>>>
>>>Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is
>>>this something completely different ?
>>
>>
>> It's something completely different. XPS actually works, for a start.
>
> XPS may work ... but so does 10g grid as I happily proved to more
> than 60 people last week: Wednesday evening to the Puget Sound
> Oracle Users Group and Thursday evening to my Advanced Oracle class
> at the University of Washington.
>
> Comparing grid with XPS is like comparing a Informix database with
> an Excel spreadsheet. While they may both run on computers that is
> pretty much where the similarities begin and end. If you would like
> to come to Seattle on March 20th for Oracle Technology Day I would
> be happy to give you a full tour including ASM and ADDM.
Sure, I'll come. You send the plane ticket?
Daniel Morgan
Where are you?
mpruet
> Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and about it's grid computing capabilities.
>
>
>
> Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is this something completely different ?
>
and what the rest of the world considers to be grid computing.
The rest of the world considers grid computing to be using a resource
regardless of the resource. That means that it considers an Oracle
data source to be equivalent to an IDS data source, or a DB2, or a
MSSql. For that matter, in a true grid environment, non-relational
data, such as data contained in spreadsheets, maps, XML documents,
etc. are also considered to be valid data for processing. This means
that data sources must be treated as a virturalized datasource.
Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some
resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be
a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because
is not virturalizing the data sources.
Daniel Morgan
> Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some
> resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be
> a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because
> is not virturalizing the data sources.
I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of
explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is
what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic
with catastrophic.
There is absolutely no relationship between XPS and grid or between
RAC and grid. The grid control can be used to manage cluster resources
but one can have RAC without grid and grid without RAC. They are two
entirely different technologies ... two entirely different concepts.
So the statement, above, is completely incorrect.
Obnoxio The Clown
> mpruet wrote:
>
>> Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some
>> resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be
>> a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because
>> is not virturalizing the data sources.
>
> I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of
> explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is
> what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic
> with catastrophic.
I wondered what had happened to all Informix's marketing staff. Now I know.
Paul G. Brown
> mpruet wrote:
>
> > Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some
> > resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be
> > a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because
> > is not virturalizing the data sources.
>
> I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of
> explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is
> what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic
> with catastrophic.
>
> There is absolutely no relationship between XPS and grid or between
> RAC and grid. The grid control can be used to manage cluster resources
> but one can have RAC without grid and grid without RAC. They are two
> entirely different technologies ... two entirely different concepts.
>
> So the statement, above, is completely incorrect.
But yours, and Oracle marketing's, is gibberish.
From:
http://www.gridcomputing.com/gridfaq.html
"The key distinction between clusters and grids is[sic] mainly lie in the way
resources are managed. In case of clusters, the resource allocation is
performed by a centralised resource manager and all nodes cooperatively
work together as a single unified resource. In case of Grids, each node
has its own resource manager and don't aim for providing a single system
view."
Given this definition of the term of art ("grid" - in the context of
computing) there can be no such thing as a centralized "grid control".
The whole point of a grid -- as distinct from a cluster -- is that a
grid is self-organizing. That's why "there is no relationship between
XPS and grid, or RAC and grid".
If what 10g has is a tool that lets DBAs add machines to and remove
machines at will, then that is not a "grid" as defined above. It's a
really useful thing, but it ain't a grid. With a grid, you tell a
machine about 'the grid', and it insinuates itself into 'the grid',
making its resources available for whatever it is that 'the grid' is
up to. With 10g, you tell 10g about the machine, quite a different thing.
There are *lots* of interesting technologies being worked on to make
data management on 'the grid' a reality -- distributed hash tables,
agoric query processing, transaction-pairing -- but none of them has
found its way into a commercial DBMS.
What Oracle's use of the term does, however, is to brilliantly obfuscate
an emergent technology with buzz-word-babble. Look - resource provisioning
is a really cool, really hard, thing to do, and if Oracle's managed it
then that's pretty impressive. But a grid is something else entirely.
So, simple question Daniel. Do you tell the machine about 10G, or do
you tell 10G about the machine?
mpruet
>
> > Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some
> > resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be
> > a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because
> > is not virturalizing the data sources.
>
> I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of
> explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is
> what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic
> with catastrophic.
>
> There is absolutely no relationship between XPS and grid or between
> RAC and grid. The grid control can be used to manage cluster resources
> but one can have RAC without grid and grid without RAC. They are two
> entirely different technologies ... two entirely different concepts.
>
> So the statement, above, is completely incorrect.
One can have grid without XPS, just as one can have XPS without grid.
In fact, one can have grid with IDS and ER. In fact one of the larger
current scientific European grid environments is running IDS using ER
and one of the larger current medical grid systems is running on DB2.
You are correct, there is much more to grid processing than XPS, RAC,
etc. There is publishing of various locations of data to
applications, there is virtualization of data so that all hetrogenous,
there is quantification of quality of service, there movement of data,
there is dynamic provisioning of resources, etc....
My point is that while 10g does provide dynamic resource provisioning
(somthing that XPS has done for years), it does not virtualize the
resources available to it. It does not provide grid services to
non-Oracle 10g systems, nor does it integrate dynamically with
non-relational data sources. Therefor, to call it a grid database is
rather questionable.
Daniel Morgan
Paul G. Brown wrote:
> But yours, and Oracle marketing's, is gibberish.
Not necessarily "and" ... could be "or".
>
> From:
>
> http://www.gridcomputing.com/gridfaq.html
>
> "The key distinction between clusters and grids is[sic] mainly lie in the way
> resources are managed. In case of clusters, the resource allocation is
> performed by a centralised resource manager and all nodes cooperatively
> work together as a single unified resource. In case of Grids, each node
> has its own resource manager and don't aim for providing a single system
> view."
From my experience neither describes the Oracle grid control.
> Given this definition of the term of art ("grid" - in the context of
> computing) there can be no such thing as a centralized "grid control".
Thus one can reasonably conclude that people in a marketing department
redefined a word for their own purposes. Well that sure would be the
first time that ever happened. ;-)
> The whole point of a grid -- as distinct from a cluster -- is that a
> grid is self-organizing. That's why "there is no relationship between
> XPS and grid, or RAC and grid".
The Oracle grid control can be self-organizing but it can also be
managed entirely by human intervention. Depends on how it is set up.
> If what 10g has is a tool that lets DBAs add machines to and remove
> machines at will, then that is not a "grid" as defined above.
I thought I said that. ;-)
It's a
> really useful thing, but it ain't a grid.
As defined by someone else. Surely you wouldn't want to have the fine
folks at Microsoft defining the word "partition" for any of us.
With a grid, you tell a
> machine about 'the grid', and it insinuates itself into 'the grid',
> making its resources available for whatever it is that 'the grid' is
> up to. With 10g, you tell 10g about the machine, quite a different thing.
Not at all. The grid has an agent that can find the resource on its own.
> There are *lots* of interesting technologies being worked on to make
> data management on 'the grid' a reality -- distributed hash tables,
> agoric query processing, transaction-pairing -- but none of them has
> found its way into a commercial DBMS.
Distributed hash tables aren't in a commercial DBMS yet?
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96540/statements_73a.htm#2063017
CREATE TABLE hash_products
( product_id NUMBER(6)
, product_name VARCHAR2(50)
, product_description VARCHAR2(2000)
, category_id NUMBER(2)
, weight_class NUMBER(1)
, warranty_period INTERVAL YEAR TO MONTH
, supplier_id NUMBER(6)
, product_status VARCHAR2(20)
, list_price NUMBER(8,2)
, min_price NUMBER(8,2)
, catalog_url VARCHAR2(50)
, CONSTRAINT product_status_lov
CHECK (product_status in ('orderable'
,'planned'
,'under development'
,'obsolete')
) )
PARTITION BY HASH (product_id)
PARTITIONS 5
STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4);
Could have fooled me.
> What Oracle's use of the term does, however, is to brilliantly obfuscate
> an emergent technology with buzz-word-babble. Look - resource provisioning
> is a really cool, really hard, thing to do, and if Oracle's managed it
> then that's pretty impressive. But a grid is something else entirely.
>
> So, simple question Daniel. Do you tell the machine about 10G, or do
> you tell 10G about the machine?
As I stated above ... an agent, running 7x24, finds the resource.
Keep in mind here we are not talking just about database servers.
We are also talking about app servers, web servers, any piece of
hardware with a heart-beat and Oracle software installed.
Unless a technology rises to the level of becoming part of some
standard (ASCII, ISO) the words used to describe it are a battle
ground upon which marketing and P/R types fight their wars.
All I care about is the technology. And no matter what Oracle
chooses to call it ... it is incredible.
Daniel Morgan
> My point is that while 10g does provide dynamic resource provisioning
> (somthing that XPS has done for years), it does not virtualize the
> resources available to it. It does not provide grid services to
> non-Oracle 10g systems,
And XPS provides grid control to Oracle database and application
servers? Please point me to a document describing this. I haven't
seen it before.
nor does it integrate dynamically with
> non-relational data sources.
Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the
Application Server.
Therefor, to call it a grid database is rather questionable.
To the best of my knowledge Oracle has not referred to it as a "grid
datbase". I have two CD packs sitting on my desk. They are:
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2)
the other
Oracle Enterprise Manager 10g Grid Control Release 1 (10.1.0.2)
The grid control is part of OEM ... not the database.
Captain Pedantic
news:c1tug3$1ngkta$1...@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
> > I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of
> > explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is
> > what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic
> > with catastrophic.
>
> I wondered what had happened to all Informix's marketing staff. Now I
know.
Actually, I believe they have been absorbed into IBM, and are now engaged in
persuading Informix customers to move to DB2!
Obnoxio The Clown
Ohhh, riiiight! That explains it.
Obnoxio The Clown
> mpruet wrote:
>
>
>> My point is that while 10g does provide dynamic resource provisioning
>> (somthing that XPS has done for years), it does not virtualize the
>> resources available to it. It does not provide grid services to
>> non-Oracle 10g systems,
>
> And XPS provides grid control to Oracle database and application
> servers? Please point me to a document describing this. I haven't
> seen it before.
XPS isn't claiming to be a grid database.
> nor does it integrate dynamically with
>> non-relational data sources.
>
> Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the
> Application Server.
That must be a real challenge.
Fernando Nunes
> Distributed hash tables aren't in a commercial DBMS yet?
>
> http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96540/statements_73a.htm#2063017
>
>
> CREATE TABLE hash_products
> ( product_id NUMBER(6)
> , product_name VARCHAR2(50)
> , product_description VARCHAR2(2000)
> , category_id NUMBER(2)
> , weight_class NUMBER(1)
> , warranty_period INTERVAL YEAR TO MONTH
> , supplier_id NUMBER(6)
> , product_status VARCHAR2(20)
> , list_price NUMBER(8,2)
> , min_price NUMBER(8,2)
> , catalog_url VARCHAR2(50)
> , CONSTRAINT product_status_lov
> CHECK (product_status in ('orderable'
> ,'planned'
> ,'under development'
> ,'obsolete')
> ) )
> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id)
> PARTITIONS 5
> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4);
Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems?
Serge Rielau
>
> Unless a technology rises to the level of becoming part of some
> standard (ASCII, ISO) the words used to describe it are a battle
> ground upon which marketing and P/R types fight their wars.
>
> All I care about is the technology. And no matter what Oracle
> chooses to call it ... it is incredible.
of Washingtons CompScience library. Most terms in the industry are not
standardized, yet they are generally accepted.
Messing with them opens one up for a certain amount of ridicule to say
the least.
The notion of the grid is not a technology. It's a concept.
Oracle has some technology.. But it ain't grid.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Daniel Morgan
>>Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the
>>Application Server.
>
>
> That must be a real challenge.
That's why I find it so amazing. I might have an light load on
a particular cluster of data servers and have app servers being
beaten up. I can just reallocate the computing resources on the
fly or set things up so that they reallocate themselves.
I think a better way of looking at what Oracle has done, and is
doing, is not a grid of databases ... but rather rebuilding
mainframes from commoditized hardware and operating systems.
Littke noticed is that with grid Oracle supplies the volume
manager and cluster file system at no additional charge with
the EE license.
Daniel Morgan
They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical
files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives.
Fernando Nunes
>>> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id)
>>> PARTITIONS 5
>>> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4);
>>
>>
>>
>> Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems?
>
>
> They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical
> files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives.
In the context of a discussion about grid computing, when talking about "distributed hash tables" I wouln't have given that statement as an example of "distributed" hash tables.
I would bet that when mentioning "distributed hash tables" the original poster was referring to "distributed" among (heterogenic?) systems.... not "disks".
Regards.
mpruet
> mpruet wrote:
>
>
> > My point is that while 10g does provide dynamic resource provisioning
> > (somthing that XPS has done for years), it does not virtualize the
> > resources available to it. It does not provide grid services to
> > non-Oracle 10g systems,
>
> And XPS provides grid control to Oracle database and application
> servers? Please point me to a document describing this. I haven't
> seen it before.
>
> nor does it integrate dynamically with
> > non-relational data sources.
>
> Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the
> Application Server.
Is it integrating with msSQL, DB2, Sybase, and IDS? What about
mainframes, spreadsheets, text data, etc. Is is able to decide that a
query should be executed on an IDS server because currently the IDS
server is idle?
If the answer to this is no - then all that 10G has really done is to
implement clusters in which the query execution can be dynamically
performed. Again - this is somthing that XPS and DB2 EEE has done for
years.
As I mentioned earlier - there will be a lot of confusion with Oracle
calling 10G a grid system because they are using a term without regard
to it's meaning. There might be some truth in calling it a grid-like
archecture, but then again - XPS and DB2-EEE are also grid-like
archectures.
Daniel Morgan
Perhaps. But the data is hashed and there is nothing that precludes
it being distributed over storage from different vendors. If you can
mount the file system you can use the storage. But when talking
about tables ... we are talking about storage ... not database kernels.
Daniel Morgan
> Is it integrating with msSQL, DB2, Sybase, and IDS? What about
> mainframes, spreadsheets, text data, etc. Is is able to decide that a
> query should be executed on an IDS server because currently the IDS
> server is idle?
Oracle only ... Oracle only. I would expect Larry would be as
excited about supporting a competitors product as Bill would be
about supporting Open Standards.
> If the answer to this is no - then all that 10G has really done is to
> implement clusters in which the query execution can be dynamically
> performed. Again - this is somthing that XPS and DB2 EEE has done for
> years.
XPS and EEE have not done this. They have done something but it is
not this and this is not clusters. RAC is clusters. Grid Control is
an entirely different animal.
That some think it is the is bad marketing from Oracle. The product
has absolutely nothing to do with clusters. It can be used to manage
them but that is as close as the two come to each other.
> As I mentioned earlier - there will be a lot of confusion with Oracle
> calling 10G a grid system because they are using a term without regard
> to it's meaning. There might be some truth in calling it a grid-like
> archecture, but then again - XPS and DB2-EEE are also grid-like
> archectures.
I would disagree. Even if one overlooks the fact that shared-nothing
precludes a true grid ... clustering is irrelevant to what Oracle
has released. And XPS and EEE have nothing in common with ASM and ADDM.
Serge Rielau
> Fernando Nunes wrote:
>
>> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>>
>>>>> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id)
>>>>> PARTITIONS 5
>>>>> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical
>>> files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the context of a discussion about grid computing, when talking
>> about "distributed hash tables" I wouln't have given that statement as
>> an example of "distributed" hash tables.
>> I would bet that when mentioning "distributed hash tables" the
>> original poster was referring to "distributed" among (heterogenic?)
>> systems.... not "disks".
>>
>> Regards.
>
>
> Perhaps. But the data is hashed and there is nothing that precludes
> it being distributed over storage from different vendors. If you can
> mount the file system you can use the storage. But when talking
> about tables ... we are talking about storage ... not database kernels.
>
Storage on different systems connected only through the internet?
http://www-1.ibm.com/grid/about_grid/what_is.shtml
" * Like clusters and distributed computing, grids bring
computing resources together.
* Unlike clusters and distributed computing, which need
physical proximity and operating homogeneity, grids
can be geographically distributed and heterogeneous."
Obnoxio The Clown
> Fernando Nunes wrote:
>
>> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>>
>>>>> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id)
>>>>> PARTITIONS 5
>>>>> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical
>>> files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives.
>>
>>
>> In the context of a discussion about grid computing, when talking about
>> "distributed hash tables" I wouln't have given that statement as an
>> example of "distributed" hash tables.
>> I would bet that when mentioning "distributed hash tables" the original
>> poster was referring to "distributed" among (heterogenic?) systems....
>> not "disks".
>>
>> Regards.
>
> Perhaps. But the data is hashed and there is nothing that precludes
> it being distributed over storage from different vendors. If you can
> mount the file system you can use the storage. But when talking
> about tables ... we are talking about storage ... not database kernels.
Oh, for f***'s sake. This is extremely disingenious, even for you. IDS has
had this facility for years, there is nothing grid-y about it.
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>>>Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the
>>>Application Server.
>>
>> That must be a real challenge.
>
> That's why I find it so amazing.
So it's true that Americans don't do irony?
Obnoxio The Clown
> And XPS and EEE have nothing in common with ASM and ADDM.
But it all sounds like BS to me.
Have you considered working for IBM? You suffer from rampant acronymitis.
Clive Eisen
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
>
>>And XPS and EEE have nothing in common with ASM and ADDM.
>
>
> But it all sounds like BS to me.
>
> Have you considered working for IBM? You suffer from rampant acronymitis.
>
--
Clive
Fernando Nunes
> Oh, for f***'s sake. This is extremely disingenious, even for you. IDS has
> had this facility for years, there is nothing grid-y about it.
Take the pills! Be careful... You're probably not young anymore >:>
It has "hash" and "table" in it... it's distributed over several physical disks... Why not call it grid?!
You are too strick! :)
Regards.
Captain Pedantic
> Oh, for f***'s sake. This is extremely disingenious, even for you. IDS has
> had this facility for years, there is nothing grid-y about it.
Did you mean "disingenuous"?
Captain Pedantic
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
> > Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
> >
> >>>Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the
> >>>Application Server.
> >>
> >> That must be a real challenge.
> >
> > That's why I find it so amazing.
>
> So it's true that Americans don't do irony?
They are have very low susceptibility to it by comparison with many nations:
for example those wacky, laugh-a-minute South African loons ....
Paul G. Brown
> Distributed hash tables aren't in a commercial DBMS yet?
>
> http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96540/statements_73a.htm#2063017
>
> CREATE TABLE hash_products
> ( product_id NUMBER(6)
[ snip ]
> ) )
> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id)
> PARTITIONS 5
> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4);
>
> Could have fooled me.
Your choice of words.
You teach a university course on data management, and you don't even
know the terms of art?
A distributed hash table (or distributed hashing) is a technique for
allocating keyed data values over a set of machines. In contrast to
the hash partitioning you have presented here, in a distributed hash
each storage resource is autonomous and posesses limited knowledge
about its peers, and no single machine knows where every partition is.
Data lookup is accomplished by a variety of message forwarding
techniques.
A grid is a physical architecture. In a grid, machines that participate
are autonomous peers. Their resources -- storage, compute, memory, etc --
are 'virtualized' with the grid software performing the physical
management.
> All I care about is the technology. And no matter what Oracle
> chooses to call it ... it is incredible.
[snarky mode on]
To judge from your lack of familiarity with technical language and what
it means, I am skeptical of your judgements. It sounds to me like O have,
in 10G, on-line provisioning. Great. It's hard to do. But others --
Teradata, Digital Rdb, Tandem and mainframe DBMSs, to pick some examples --
have had this for years (decades, in the case of Rdb and mainframe DBMSs).
Pb
Alexey Sonkin
>
> CREATE TABLE hash_products
> ( product_id NUMBER(6)
> , product_name VARCHAR2(50)
> , product_description VARCHAR2(2000)
> , category_id NUMBER(2)
> , weight_class NUMBER(1)
> , warranty_period INTERVAL YEAR TO MONTH
> , supplier_id NUMBER(6)
> , product_status VARCHAR2(20)
> , list_price NUMBER(8,2)
> , min_price NUMBER(8,2)
> , catalog_url VARCHAR2(50)
> , CONSTRAINT product_status_lov
> CHECK (product_status in ('orderable'
> ,'planned'
> ,'under development'
> ,'obsolete')
> ) )
> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id)
> PARTITIONS 5
> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4);
>
> Could have fooled me.
>
Yes, it did.
This is not a distributed hash table.
This is a table fragmented by hash.
sending to informix-list
Obnoxio The Clown
The captain's on his finest form
and my cheeks are feeling quite warm
I slipped on this post
about Oracle's boast
but it isn't gen'rally the norm
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ą dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Obnoxio The Clown
No, I was getting bored with it too.
Daniel Morgan
> Oh, for f***'s sake. This is extremely disingenious, even for you. IDS has
> had this facility for years, there is nothing grid-y about it.
That's fascinating. Please provide a feature by feature comparison
between ASM and ADDM and their corresponding IDS counterparts. I've
no doubt all of us will be interested in seeing how each stacks up.
Daniel Morgan
I'm still waiting to here how one does transparent fail-over with DB2
or Informix. According to OTC you folks have had it for years and I
have somehow missed that fact.
Daniel Morgan
> You teach a university course on data management, and you don't even
> know the terms of art?
We aren't discussing my "academic" definitions of these words.
We are discussing those definitions as developed by marketing
departments. There about as many definitions of "grid" as their
are commercial implementations.
Your definition of distributed hashing as only being of relevance
to shared-nothing architecture is nothing but the same. It is the
definition based upon a specific architecture: It is not the
definition based upon all architectures.
rkusenet
> I'm still waiting to here how one does transparent fail-over with DB2
> or Informix. According to OTC you folks have had it for years and I
"you folks" ???
Does that mean u are not part of us :-).
Nothing wrong in being in Oracle camp, but at least don't have any
pretentions of impartiality, which u brag about.
I take this opportunity to post an old exchange between us. See whether
it is still relevant:-
===============================
From: rkusenet (rkus...@sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Fw: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.databases.informix
Date: 2003-09-23 07:09:01 PST
Daniel Morgan wrote:
>I think marketing, advertising, and hyperbole are irrelevant to a usenet group.
>A bunch of employees crowing about the fact that the company that pays their
>salary is better than the company that doesn't it not something I have to go to the
> internet to read.
Why restrict to only those who are employees of company that makes a product.
In what way an Oracle user, specially DBAs, who uses Oracle for his living,
will be any less biased than an employee of Oracle Corp like Mark Townsend.
Of course the same applies to Informix DBAs too.
> I've no doubt the people that are paid to do marketing
> for Coca Cola can quote equally valid statistics about those
>"Pepsi Users". Me? I just walk up to the machine,
> put in my quarters and take whatever comes out. It's all brown fizzy water to me.
the only difference is that coke/pepsi isn't about my job/career. Sure u and I
will be unbiased when it comes to coke vs pepsi or Honda vs Toyota, since it
is not about our job. But Oracle vs DB2/Informix is a different beast altogether.
That's why I take ur statements defending Oracle's TCO with a handful of the needful.
rk-
Paul G. Brown
No. He meant "dissin'-da-genius".
But thanks for your contribution . . .
Mark Townsend
Que ?
Anyhow, to cut a long thread even longer, Oracle's definition of Grid
Computing revolves around 4 key areas
Storage Grid
------------
Storing all of your data in one or more Oracle databases on shared pools
of disks, with automatic striping and mirroring across the pool to
ensure maximum throughput and availability. Ability to add and remove
disk to and from the pool on demand, and have the data automatically
re-stripe and remirror online (to ensure max performance and
availability). Built in data protection capabilities (mirroring,
automated backup/recovery to a central recovery area, flashback (undo),
and automated standby).
Database Grid
-------------
A cluster of standardized, low-cost commodity 2 and 4 way boxes,
indirectly attached to above mentioned disk farms, running multiple
defined workloads (i.e ERP, CRM, DW). Service level definitions built
into the Oracle network and cluster level that detemines which nodes in
the cluster are addressing which workload at which time, based on
availability and performance service level definitions. Ability to
dynamically adjust the amount of resources being dedicated at any one
time to any one workload, based on resource consumption (Think of it as
a cluster wide resource management framework). Supported on all OS's,
without the need for OS specific clusterware. Databases are self
managing, data stored in a database on one OS can be used by a database
on a different OS. Ability to offload batch workload from one database
to another via a built in scheduler that is integrated with the resource
management, and ship not only the workload, but also the required data
as well. Across OSes. With or without the cluster.
App Server Grid
----------------
Where the more 'understood' parts of the traditional Grid lives - App
Server farms (built from the same low cost hardware) supporting
discovery, net-based communcation protocols, web services, application
integration, GDK's etc. What Serge has been refering to. Note that the
App Server layer shares the same workload definitions as the database
layer, and is aware of where the underlying database resources are
currently coming from for failover and resource balancing. Identity is
also common across app server and database. Other than that it's all
standards and alphabet soup to me and something I understand very little
about.
Grid Control
------------
Oracle management platform that spans the above. Provides end-to-end
'vertical' performance tracing and monitoring of a workload down through
the horizontal layers of the 'Grid' (i.e from client machine, into
network layer, into app server layer, into database layer, down into
storage layer). Service level alerts built down through stack for
performance and availability. Click to EJB and Click to SQL diagnosis
for key representative transactions. Also provides central software
configuration repository with built in patch management, supporting
online checks with published reference configurations, and automated
patch download. Centralized cloning and configfuration of new hardware
resources as they are added to Grid. Built in policy violation checks of
cloned environments. Allows new resources to be statically provisioned
if the current dynamic resources are not enough.
I think the big difference between Oracle's view of the Grid and what
the Grid is currently known as (as least by IBM), is that most Grids
today are attempted by orgs that typically cannot afford to provision
their own IT environment, so they try to use the current Grid technology
etc to find and 're-purpose' spare cycles on the net (or within a
defined community). Sort of a computing socialism. The apps also tend to
need to be 'embarassingly parallel' and specifically written to take
advantage of the Grid like capabilities. A great idea for Universities
doing large scale number crunching etc, and something that is supported
in the App Server, but not too likely to work for Ford and GM for their
business processing (Can you imagine Ford sending GM some of their SAP
workload every now and then ?).
Oracle's grid (at least for the data serving services below the app
server) is based on the idea that companies will simply build and
provision their own inexpensive 'grids' from low-cost components within
their firewall, the so-called 'Enterprise Grid', and then run all of
their applications on them transparently. Cost savings comes from
standardization, automation, consolidation and commoditization. Top of
line pay back comes from the ability to deploy new workloads quickly and
dynamically share resources.
Oh, and a big part of the Oracle thing is that it's also structured so
that each bit provides some benefit in it's own right, nobody has to use
all of it at once, it's OS and hardware idependent, and that existing
customer investments are protected as well. So it's built on some things
you have already seen (RAC, for instance), and adds some new
capabilities as well.
Daniel Morgan
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
>> I'm still waiting to here how one does transparent fail-over with DB2
>> or Informix. According to OTC you folks have had it for years and I
>
>
> "you folks" ???
That was sarcasm. The only year in the last 5 or 6 I haven't done
some Informix work, so far, is this one. But I did have the joy of
getting rid of a FoxPro database in January. That should count for
something.
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dirk Moolman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and
>>>>>about it's grid computing capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>>Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or
>>>>>is this something completely different ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's something completely different. XPS actually works, for a start.
>>>
>>>XPS may work ... but so does 10g grid as I happily proved to more
>>>than 60 people last week: Wednesday evening to the Puget Sound
>>>Oracle Users Group and Thursday evening to my Advanced Oracle class
>>>at the University of Washington.
>>>
>>>Comparing grid with XPS is like comparing a Informix database with
>>>an Excel spreadsheet. While they may both run on computers that is
>>>pretty much where the similarities begin and end. If you would like
>>>to come to Seattle on March 20th for Oracle Technology Day I would
>>>be happy to give you a full tour including ASM and ADDM.
>>
>>
>> Sure, I'll come. You send the plane ticket?
>
> Where are you?
Heathrow is near enough.
Obnoxio The Clown
> Fernando Nunes wrote:
>
>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, for f***'s sake. This is extremely disingenious, even for you. IDS
>>> has had this facility for years, there is nothing grid-y about it.
>>
>>
>> Take the pills! Be careful... You're probably not young anymore >:>
>> It has "hash" and "table" in it... it's distributed over several
>> physical disks... Why not call it grid?!
>> You are too strick! :)
>>
>> Regards.
>
> I'm still waiting to here how one does transparent fail-over with DB2
> or Informix. According to OTC you folks have had it for years and I
> have somehow missed that fact.
What are you talking about? You talked about hash partitioned tables, not
transparent failover. And many different types of partitioning have been in
IDS for years. You then tried to imply some sort of grid-ness, because
these might be on different vendors' disks....
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> Oh, for f***'s sake. This is extremely disingenious, even for you. IDS
>> has had this facility for years, there is nothing grid-y about it.
>
> That's fascinating. Please provide a feature by feature comparison
> between ASM and ADDM and their corresponding IDS counterparts. I've
> no doubt all of us will be interested in seeing how each stacks up.
You're the only one here who knows what an ASM or ADDM is.
And cares, for that matter.
SkidMark
I didn't see the Captain on this one, and didn't want to step
in wrongly if you're in the clear.
"Obnoxio The Clown" <obn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c21g9v$1od0lr$3...@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de...
Daniel Morgan
>>>Sure, I'll come. You send the plane ticket?
>>
>>Where are you?
>
>
> Heathrow is near enough.
Ouch. I expect I'll be in the Cotswolds in May. I'll tell you about it
then. ;-)
Daniel Morgan
> What are you talking about? You talked about hash partitioned tables, not
> transparent failover. And many different types of partitioning have been in
> IDS for years. You then tried to imply some sort of grid-ness, because
> these might be on different vendors' disks....
Wrong part of this wide-ranging thread. The original comment about
hashing was a side-topic.
Daniel Morgan
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
> You're the only one here who knows what an ASM or ADDM is.
>
> And cares, for that matter.
Just in case there is one person out there that does:
http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/17315
Surely you want to know what Mark's been doing in his spare time.
Paul G. Brown
> Paul G. Brown wrote:
>
> > You teach a university course on data management, and you don't even
> > know the terms of art?
>
> We aren't discussing my "academic" definitions of these words.
>
> We are discussing those definitions as developed by marketing
> departments. There about as many definitions of "grid" as their
> are commercial implementations.
>
> Your definition of distributed hashing as only being of relevance
> to shared-nothing architecture is nothing but the same. It is the
> definition based upon a specific architecture: It is not the
> definition based upon all architectures.
So, do you tell your students that their curriculum has been
developed by Oracle's Marketing department? Do they tell this
to their employees? How much help do you think your course would be
a student suddenly encountering the real world?
You can't have it both ways. Either you are competent to judge
a technology, and place an innovation into some kind of context.
Or else you are simply a shill. A grid -- which might use distributed
hashing -- is a very different thing from a shared-nothing distributed
architecture. In the former it is very hard to see how any parallel
query processing, or a trick like fragment elimination, might be
achieved. But shared-nothing technology was developed precisely to
support these query processing tricks.
We retort. You deride.
Paul G. Brown
> > an employee of Oracle Corp like Mark Townsend.
>
> Que ?
>
> Anyhow, to cut a long thread even longer, Oracle's definition of Grid
> Computing revolves around 4 key areas
[ snip ]
All of which are fine things, fairly well explained, and if Oracle has
technology to back up the powerpoint these are all useful and commendable.
None of it particularly innovative, but brought together like this, a nice
package all in all.
I'd also say that Oracle's grabbing the term 'grid' to describe this
is pretty clever marketing. Co-opt an emerging buzz-word and build it into
the brand. There is some risk that consumers will have developed a
pre-conception of what the term refers to -- they've used Napster, Kaza and
maybe BitTorrent -- but that can be turned into a positive because it
brings the customer to ask clarifying questions of the sales rep that
allows the sales team to 'demonstrate value'.
I guess I'm just one of those hopelessly old-fashioned engineers who
cares about what terms mean. Just not post-modern enough. Mother always
said that.
Daniel Morgan
> So, do you tell your students that their curriculum has been
> developed by Oracle's Marketing department?
No one at Oracle has ever seen the curriculum unless they are a student
in the class. The University of Washington is a research university ...
not a certificate mill. All curriculum is original and does not include
even a single PowerPoint slide.
Daniel Morgan
> I'd also say that Oracle's grabbing the term 'grid' to describe this
> is pretty clever marketing. Co-opt an emerging buzz-word and build it into
> the brand.
Remember when windows were made out of glass?
The only similarity being, I presume, that both are often broken.
Serge Rielau
>The University of Washington is a research university ...
> not a certificate mill.
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_gen.asp
I taught First Aid and Life Guarding at University of Kaiserlautern....
Cheers
Serge
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> What are you talking about? You talked about hash partitioned tables, not
>> transparent failover. And many different types of partitioning have been
>> in IDS for years. You then tried to imply some sort of grid-ness, because
>> these might be on different vendors' disks....
>
> Wrong part of this wide-ranging thread. The original comment about
> hashing was a side-topic.
Well, pay attention to where you post observations like this then! :o)
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ą dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>>
>> You're the only one here who knows what an ASM or ADDM is.
>>
>> And cares, for that matter.
>
> Just in case there is one person out there that does:
> http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/17315
>
> Surely you want to know what Mark's been doing in his spare time.
"And cares, for that matter"... :o)
I can only assume that this implies some degree off goodness that make
Oracle less of a PITA to manage. This is unlikely to be a huge priority for
Informixers -- we love what we do and don't get enough of it.
Or looking after databases.
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ą dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Obnoxio The Clown
Explains a _*lot*_ about DB2. :o>
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Jack Parker
I must say it's different reading only half of the conversation. DM must
have excellent students to have this much free time on his hands.
cheers
j.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Obnoxio The Clown" <obn...@hotmail.com>
To: <inform...@iiug.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Oracle 10G
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
> > Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
> >
> >> Daniel Morgan wrote:
> >>
> >> You're the only one here who knows what an ASM or ADDM is.
> >>
> >> And cares, for that matter.
> >
> > Just in case there is one person out there that does:
> > http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/17315
> >
> > Surely you want to know what Mark's been doing in his spare time.
>
> "And cares, for that matter"... :o)
>
> I can only assume that this implies some degree off goodness that make
> Oracle less of a PITA to manage. This is unlikely to be a huge priority
for
> Informixers -- we love what we do and don't get enough of it.
>
> Or looking after databases.
>
> --
> "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
> - Coluche
>
sending to informix-list
Daniel Morgan
> I must say it's different reading only half of the conversation. DM must
> have excellent students to have this much free time on his hands.
>
> cheers
> j.
I do. The classes I teach are not for 20 year olds. To qualify for
the Oracle classes requires a minimum of an undergraduate degree so
the program attracts 90+% industry professionals looking for
additional skills. Most already have 1 or 2 RDBMS products under
their belt and many Java and C too. So 6 hours of lecture per week
is all I have to do and the rest of my time is free for other pursuits
and the weather is not yet conducive for sailing.
Eric Rowell
I have mixed feelings on your class requirements and almost to the
point of being offended. Since I don't have a degree and am in my 20's
this would make me have to take my money somewhere else if it ever came
to be that I had to return to the programming world and would require
training form a company like yours.
Just to give an Idea... I have been a DBA for more then 7 years and
work for a big Teleconferencing company (225M a year of our Devision) as
the Lead Production DBA with 3 DBAs working with me. I have a key hand
in the direction of the companies systems and providing anything that
senior management can dream up. I know Informix, Oracle, MySQL, M$ SQL,
and have been a programmer as well working with perl, C, C++ and
others. It is common in my day for me to train someone that has a
Degree and is over 30 to complete some task they should already know how
to do. This includes Database, Programming, Networking, and Systems
questions.
There are people and companies that forget there are generations of
people that have been raised programming computers and can have a better
understanding of the technology then those that have been in the field
for 20 or 30 years.
To know that I can be singled out of learning because I don't fit a
view of what a good DBA or program is just sad. I would hope that all
requirements would be flexible to the needs of the student and be based
on merit not just some standard set so high to keep from having
attracted a discrimination suite that would come from setting a limit
like age.
I hope my soap box is still in tack after my above rant and sailing
weather comes soon.
Eric B. Rowell
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 12:14, Daniel Morgan wrote:
> Jack Parker wrote:
>
> > I must say it's different reading only half of the conversation. DM must
> > have excellent students to have this much free time on his hands.
> >
> > cheers
> > j.
>
> I do. The classes I teach are not for 20 year olds. To qualify for
> the Oracle classes requires a minimum of an undergraduate degree so
> the program attracts 90+% industry professionals looking for
> additional skills. Most already have 1 or 2 RDBMS products under
> their belt and many Java and C too. So 6 hours of lecture per week
> is all I have to do and the rest of my time is free for other pursuits
> and the weather is not yet conducive for sailing.
sending to informix-list
Daniel Morgan
Eric Rowell wrote:
> I have mixed feelings on your class requirements and almost to the
> point of being offended. Since I don't have a degree and am in my 20's
> this would make me have to take my money somewhere else if it ever came
> to be that I had to return to the programming world and would require
> training form a company like yours.
You wouldn't expect to get into a medical school without an
undergraduate degree would you? Why would you expect a university to
make an exception because the field is IT?
> Just to give an Idea... I have been a DBA for more then 7 years and
> work for a big Teleconferencing company (225M a year of our Devision) as
> the Lead Production DBA with 3 DBAs working with me. I have a key hand
> in the direction of the companies systems and providing anything that
> senior management can dream up. I know Informix, Oracle, MySQL, M$ SQL,
> and have been a programmer as well working with perl, C, C++ and
> others. It is common in my day for me to train someone that has a
> Degree and is over 30 to complete some task they should already know how
> to do. This includes Database, Programming, Networking, and Systems
> questions.
As the instructor I am allowed to waive the requirement in the case of
industry knowledge. But so far I've turned away students every year, we
only accept 60 (another reason for offense? I hope not.) so it has never
been an issue. I am currently talking with another major university on
offering a similar program and they too will be looking at the very same
entrance requirements.
> There are people and companies that forget there are generations of
> people that have been raised programming computers and can have a better
> understanding of the technology then those that have been in the field
> for 20 or 30 years.
70 years ago the exact same argument was made by those practicing
medicine. They wanted to have hospital privileges. The argument doesn't
wash today any more than it did then. I don't say this to cause further
offense or due to some huge ego but most people in IT have an
over-inflated sense of their own abilities. And the number of failed
projects and the number of wasted dollars are testament enough to that
being fact.
> To know that I can be singled out of learning because I don't fit a
> view of what a good DBA or program is just sad.
Or a medical school, or a law school, or an engineering school, etc.
I would hope that all
> requirements would be flexible to the needs of the student and be based
> on merit not just some standard set so high to keep from having
> attracted a discrimination suite that would come from setting a limit
> like age.
>
> I hope my soap box is still in tack after my above rant and sailing
> weather comes soon.
>
> Eric B. Rowell
We have the ability to offer an exemption but have never been asked
to do so. Please keep in mind this is a university not a for-profit
corporation. If 5000 people apply to the program ... only 60 get in.
So the rules are a bit different from those of a certification mill.
To give you an idea of the type of people that have successfully
graduated from the program ... I have one student that was sent over
by her company from Japan and is currently back in Osaka at Siebel.
Another that entered with a Masters Degree in Engineering and has
subsequently earned another in Computer Science and is now at Boeing
in Houston, Texas. These people are not slouches by any definition.
The truth is that I too would have a hard time getting into the very
program that I teach. ;-)
Oooh Huffy Huffy
> Jack Parker wrote:
>
> > DM must have excellent students to have this much free time on his hands.
> >
> > cheers
> > j.
>
> I do. The classes I teach are not for 20 year olds. To qualify for
> the Oracle classes requires a minimum of an undergraduate degree so
> the program attracts 90+% industry professionals looking for
> additional skills. Most already have 1 or 2 RDBMS products under
> their belt and many Java and C too.
So they'd know really basic stuff then like about 9 not in (1, 2, 3,
null) being false?
:-O
> From: Daniel Morgan (damo...@x.washington.edu)
> Subject: What is the difference?
> View: Complete Thread (8 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
> Date: 2003-09-28 13:36:11 PST
>
>
> I know its [sic] Sunday and I should be out enjoying the 83 degree weather
> with beautiful blue skies ... but my brain
> is obviously fried as I can't figure out why these two SQL statements
> produce different results form the exact
> same data set.
>
> SELECT person_id
> FROM person
> WHERE app_status = 'RA'
> AND gender = 'F'
> AND person_id NOT IN (
> SELECT DISTINCT candidate_id
> FROM examiner_candidate_ie);
> -- returns 0 rows
>
> SELECT person_id
> FROM person p
> WHERE app_status = 'RA'
> AND gender = 'F'
> AND NOT EXISTS (
> SELECT candidate_id
> FROM examiner_candidate_ie
> WHERE candidate_id = p.person_id);
> -- returns the correct 17 rows
Obnoxio The Clown
> To qualify for
> the Oracle classes requires a minimum of an undergraduate degree so
> the program attracts 90+% industry professionals looking for
> additional skills. Most already have 1 or 2 RDBMS products under
> their belt and many Java and C too. So 6 hours of lecture per week
> is all I have to do and the rest of my time is free for other pursuits
> and the weather is not yet conducive for sailing.
Yeah, that's true, Oracle is so difficult and incomprehensible, you do need
to be a rocket scientist to work with it. And since NASA is not doing that
well at the moment...
Obnoxio The Clown
> I have mixed feelings on your class requirements and almost to the
> point of being offended.
Mine weren't mixed at all. I thought Daniel was being a pompous asshole. :o)
Still, if he can get away with 6 hours work a week and make enough money to
afford sailing, more power to his elbow. Or wrist. Or whatever sailors use.
Obnoxio The Clown
> Eric Rowell wrote:
>
>> I have mixed feelings on your class requirements and almost to the
>> point of being offended. Since I don't have a degree and am in my 20's
>> this would make me have to take my money somewhere else if it ever came
>> to be that I had to return to the programming world and would require
>> training form a company like yours.
>
> You wouldn't expect to get into a medical school without an
> undergraduate degree would you? Why would you expect a university to
> make an exception because the field is IT?
Uhhhh... whatever. Some of the most exceptional consultants I've had work
for me were worshipped by the multi-national corporates they looked after,
yet had never even seen the inside of a university. Some of the biggest
idiots I ever saw had graduated and been on extended training somewhat akin
to what you run (I'm guessing here, I've not been on your course.) This is
not a blanket generalisation to say that all academically qualified people
are idiots, but degrees up the wazoo is no guarantee that someone is useful
in IT.
> 70 years ago the exact same argument was made by those practicing
> medicine. They wanted to have hospital privileges. The argument doesn't
> wash today any more than it did then.
There is a substantial difference in that an IT practitioner is unlikely to
kill someone in the day to day job through a lack of theoretical knowledge.
> I don't say this to cause further
> offense or due to some huge ego but most people in IT have an
> over-inflated sense of their own abilities.
Ipse dixit.
> And the number of failed
> projects and the number of wasted dollars are testament enough to that
> being fact.
Well, a lot of those dollars (in my experience) get wasted by a surfeit of
academic education without a grasp of reality. Primarily because idiots
have been taught the theory and go out and apply that theory in places
where there are differences to the ideal world.
>> To know that I can be singled out of learning because I don't fit a
>> view of what a good DBA or program is just sad.
>
> Or a medical school, or a law school, or an engineering school, etc.
Bollocks to that. When there are legal and regulatory issues, or when lives
are at stake, you can use that argument. If I was to extend your reasoning,
then I'd have to say that in order to sweep streets you need a degree in
"sanitation engineering" or a degree in optics and technology to run a
photocopier. Or a degree in communications to run a switchboard.
> To give you an idea of the type of people that have successfully
> graduated from the program ... I have one student that was sent over
> by her company from Japan and is currently back in Osaka at Siebel.
> Another that entered with a Masters Degree in Engineering and has
> subsequently earned another in Computer Science and is now at Boeing
> in Houston, Texas. These people are not slouches by any definition.
Whoop de do. That's two underwhelming references out of 60 x how many years
have you been doing this?
I'm not knocking academics, I've known many fascinating and impressive
people who are in the parallel universe, but by the same token if I had the
choice of using someone who just had a hatful of degrees or someone who had
some scars and had done things, I know who'd get my vote every time.
Daniel Morgan
> Yeah, that's true, Oracle is so difficult and incomprehensible, you do need
> to be a rocket scientist to work with it. And since NASA is not doing that
> well at the moment...
What is difficult for some ... is easy for others. The difficulty
in the program is not the database. The course would be equally
difficult taught with any RDBMS. The difficulty is that we teach
problem solving skills: Not just syntax.
Here's a problem given to students last night. As solvable in Informix
as in Oracle: Go for it.
====================================================================
Two mathematicians (Boris and Vladimir) met accidently for the first
time in 20 years.
They greet each other and begin catching up on their respective lives.
Boris asks Vladi
"Do you have any children?" "Yes" replies Vladimir, "I have three." "How
old are they?", asks Boris.
"The product of their ages is 36 and the sum of their ages is equal to
the number of windows on that building across the street." Boris looks
at the building, counts the windows then says "Vladi, that still doesn't
tell me the ages." "Ah, says Vladi, then I must tell you that the eldest
has red hair." "Oh", says Boris, "now I know their ages." What are the
ages of Boris' children?
====================================================================
Create a table, load it with data, and write a single SQL statement to
produce the data set required to deduce the answer ... then deduce away!
Daniel Morgan
> There is a substantial difference in that an IT practitioner is unlikely to
> kill someone in the day to day job through a lack of theoretical knowledge.
Perhaps you would like to explain that to all of the people writing
database software that control the dispensing of prescription drugs,
application of toxins, medical licensing, national security, and the
stuff that keeps those planes Boeing and Airbus make in the air.
>>And the number of failed
>>projects and the number of wasted dollars are testament enough to that
>>being fact.
>
>
> Well, a lot of those dollars (in my experience) get wasted by a surfeit of
> academic education without a grasp of reality. Primarily because idiots
> have been taught the theory and go out and apply that theory in places
> where there are differences to the ideal world.
You are the one throwing around the word 'theory'. I didn't use it once.
I'd suggest you take a look at where along the road you came to the
totally eroneous conclusion that that is what is taught. Because it sure
didn't come from me. Nor does it reflect more than 2% of what is taught.
>>Or a medical school, or a law school, or an engineering school, etc.
>
> Bollocks to that. When there are legal and regulatory issues, or when lives
> are at stake, you can use that argument.
If you can't answer this question my spelling it out probably won't
help. Databases put lives at risk each and every day. And not in trivial
numbers or in trivial ways.
If I was to extend your reasoning,
> then I'd have to say that in order to sweep streets you need a degree in
> "sanitation engineering" or a degree in optics and technology to run a
> photocopier. Or a degree in communications to run a switchboard.
Good attempt at diversion but it fails.
1. You don't need a degree to sweep the streets but you probably do to
write the EPA reports and meet legal requirements.
2. You don't need a degree to run a photocopier. But you sure need one
to design and build one.
3. You don't need a degree to run a switchboard but you sure need one to
design and build one.
4. And you don't need a degree to use a database but you sure need one
to design and build one.
Sounds to me like you don't have a degree and are fearful that my
students, and those like them, are going to turn you from a developer to
a consumer just like your examples.
> I'm not knocking academics, I've known many fascinating and impressive
> people who are in the parallel universe, but by the same token if I had the
> choice of using someone who just had a hatful of degrees or someone who had
> some scars and had done things, I know who'd get my vote every time.
There was a time when people without degrees could do the job. They are
a dying breed just like those of my generation that learned on Fortran
and punchcards ... or breadboards. There were no IT degrees when we got
our start.
But my guess is that you won't be in IT 10-15 years from now when you
are asked by management to compete against 30-40 year olds with degrees.
This industry was the wild west in its infancy but it is maturing. And
in the current marketplace more and more job adds are demanding a
degree. It will become the rule rather than the exception in the not
too distant future.
There is more going on in Bangalore than just lower wages. The people
there are all degreed: And it shows.
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that's true, Oracle is so difficult and incomprehensible, you do
>> need to be a rocket scientist to work with it. And since NASA is not
>> doing that well at the moment...
>
> What is difficult for some ... is easy for others. The difficulty
> in the program is not the database. The course would be equally
> difficult taught with any RDBMS. The difficulty is that we teach
> problem solving skills: Not just syntax.
I've done the day to day running of both databases. There is a philosophical
difference in how much administration is involved and how the extensions to
ANSI SQL are presented. Oracle is just more complex, and that's actually
not a bad thing. It keeps the product visible to management and also
ensures job security.
> Here's a problem given to students last night. As solvable in Informix
> as in Oracle: Go for it.
I'm sorry, I just couldn't be bothered. I'm sure Mark S. already knows the
answer, though. (Not to put him on the spot or anything. :o)
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> There is a substantial difference in that an IT practitioner is unlikely
>> to kill someone in the day to day job through a lack of theoretical
>> knowledge.
>
> Perhaps you would like to explain that to all of the people writing
> database software that control the dispensing of prescription drugs,
> application of toxins, medical licensing, national security, and the
> stuff that keeps those planes Boeing and Airbus make in the air.
>
>>>And the number of failed
>>>projects and the number of wasted dollars are testament enough to that
>>>being fact.
>>
>> Well, a lot of those dollars (in my experience) get wasted by a surfeit
>> of academic education without a grasp of reality. Primarily because
>> idiots have been taught the theory and go out and apply that theory in
>> places where there are differences to the ideal world.
>
> You are the one throwing around the word 'theory'. I didn't use it once.
> I'd suggest you take a look at where along the road you came to the
> totally eroneous conclusion that that is what is taught. Because it sure
> didn't come from me. Nor does it reflect more than 2% of what is taught.
You can't teach experience, Daniel. You can't in a classroom environment
convey all the nuances of real life.
>>>Or a medical school, or a law school, or an engineering school, etc.
>>
>> Bollocks to that. When there are legal and regulatory issues, or when
>> lives are at stake, you can use that argument.
>
> If you can't answer this question my spelling it out probably won't
> help. Databases put lives at risk each and every day. And not in trivial
> numbers or in trivial ways.
Yes, but the vast majority of them are used to run (as per one of your
examples) Siebel or Oracle Financials, or other non-life-threatening
applications. In fact, I've consulted to over 100 companies (probably
closer to 200, I really have lost count) and never been involved in a
project where lives were at risk. When I say consulted, I mean I've done
something useful, not just popped around for a chat.
> If I was to extend your reasoning,
>> then I'd have to say that in order to sweep streets you need a degree in
>> "sanitation engineering" or a degree in optics and technology to run a
>> photocopier. Or a degree in communications to run a switchboard.
>
> Good attempt at diversion but it fails.
Gee thanks! The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind.
> 1. You don't need a degree to sweep the streets but you probably do to
> write the EPA reports and meet legal requirements.
If I might quote myself: "Bollocks to that. When there are legal and
regulatory issues, or when lives are at stake, you can use that argument."
Did you actually read my post or did you just get your dander up because I
said something you didn't like about universities?
> 2. You don't need a degree to run a photocopier. But you sure need one
> to design and build one.
Design maybe, not build.
> 3. You don't need a degree to run a switchboard but you sure need one to
> design and build one.
You do? I've known some really good telecoms engineers who might argue with
you over that one.
> 4. And you don't need a degree to use a database but you sure need one
> to design and build one.
Oh, bullshit. In terms of the use of a database, building a good database
requires understanding the business and a degree of ability. You can't
possibly teach me from the hallowed halls of Washington U how a parts
manufacturer would want to use his database. And you really don't need a
degree to learn about normalising a database.
In terms of the engineering of database technology (actually coding the IDS
server), you need to be aware of the art but some of the engineers I know
of who cut the code aren't degreed either. Most (but not all) of the
designers are, because that's the most effective way of becoming aware of
the art. But even if they all were, it's entirely specious, because you are
not training people to do that, are you?
> Sounds to me like you don't have a degree and are fearful that my
> students, and those like them, are going to turn you from a developer to
> a consumer just like your examples.
Sounds to me like you're worried that your attendees might find out that
attending your class isn't necessarily worth anything.
I'll take the Pepsi challenge any day with a raw academic, mate. In fact, I
have, and I'll do it again.
>> I'm not knocking academics, I've known many fascinating and impressive
>> people who are in the parallel universe, but by the same token if I had
>> the choice of using someone who just had a hatful of degrees or someone
>> who had some scars and had done things, I know who'd get my vote every
>> time.
>
> There was a time when people without degrees could do the job. They are
> a dying breed just like those of my generation that learned on Fortran
> and punchcards ... or breadboards. There were no IT degrees when we got
> our start.
And...?
> But my guess is that you won't be in IT 10-15 years from now when you
> are asked by management to compete against 30-40 year olds with degrees.
> This industry was the wild west in its infancy but it is maturing. And
> in the current marketplace more and more job adds are demanding a
> degree. It will become the rule rather than the exception in the not
> too distant future.
No need to wait, mate. I have to compete with people who are younger than me
and have degrees right now. Every job I've ever applied for that absolutely
required a degree would take me purely because of my experience.
> There is more going on in Bangalore than just lower wages. The people
> there are all degreed: And it shows.
Yes, it shows: every single outsource to India I've ever seens has been a
catastrophic failure. More for cultural issues than for knowledge or
ability, but it just underscores my point that a roomful of degreed people
isn't meaningful of and by itself.
Most of the great solutions to IT problems (methodologies, CASE, portable
languages) that I've ever seen have some academic research component or
stem directly from academic research. How many of them have actually solved
the application backlog, legacy program issues, bad code, yadda, yadda,
yadda?
Most of the daft ideas I had when I started out came from listening to
professors and lecturers who taught me how things should be done in an
ideal world or in very abstract and artificial environments and left me
entirely unprepared for what was really out there.
I remain defiantly sceptical that an academic education *by itself* is worth
anything. The ability to get a degree does not automatically imply any
other abilities. The inability (or lack of whatever) to get one does not
automatically imply any other inabilities.
Daniel Morgan
> You can't teach experience, Daniel. You can't in a classroom environment
> convey all the nuances of real life.
True. But you can teach how to deal with problems in the same manner as
those with the experience. Surely you know that this is a standard
business school and law school technique. Keep in mind my average
student already has 10 years in the industry ... just not with one
specific tool.
> Yes, but the vast majority of them are used to run (as per one of your
> examples) Siebel or Oracle Financials, or other non-life-threatening
> applications. In fact, I've consulted to over 100 companies (probably
> closer to 200, I really have lost count) and never been involved in a
> project where lives were at risk. When I say consulted, I mean I've done
> something useful, not just popped around for a chat.
And I have consulted with medical boards, hospitals, government
agencies, and Boeing where lives were a critical part of what was at
stake.
But even with SAP or PeopleSoft there are important issues. If mistakes
are made people go to jail. If mistakes are made people lose their
investments. Even as basic a task as a bank ATM or accounting of credit
card charges and payments, if incorrect, could be devastating.
>>Good attempt at diversion but it fails.
>
> Gee thanks! The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind.
Academic freedom: I call 'em as I see 'em.
> Oh, bullshit. In terms of the use of a database, building a good database
> requires understanding the business and a degree of ability. You can't
> possibly teach me from the hallowed halls of Washington U how a parts
> manufacturer would want to use his database. And you really don't need a
> degree to learn about normalising a database.
Why is it everyone that disagrees with me ends up with defacatory
references? ;-)
Washington U is in St. Louis more than 1000 miles away from me. With
respect to the two items you list above I respectfully disagree. Both
because they are standard parts of many university curriculums but also
because, once again, you are making assumptions on what is taught that
are just plain ... well creative. Not once have I stated that I teach
normalization: I don't.
Thus, I've cut the rest of the thread. There is no value in a
discussion in which you tell me what it is that I teach ...
apparently just filling in the nulls with default values.
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> You can't teach experience, Daniel. You can't in a classroom environment
>> convey all the nuances of real life.
>
> True. But you can teach how to deal with problems in the same manner as
> those with the experience. Surely you know that this is a standard
> business school and law school technique. Keep in mind my average
> student already has 10 years in the industry ... just not with one
> specific tool.
Yeah, right. It's taken me 20 years to learn all the things I've learned
(some of the directly contradictory to current wisdom and state of the art)
-- and you're going to teach them all that in a semester, just because they
have a degree?
>> Yes, but the vast majority of them are used to run (as per one of your
>> examples) Siebel or Oracle Financials, or other non-life-threatening
>> applications. In fact, I've consulted to over 100 companies (probably
>> closer to 200, I really have lost count) and never been involved in a
>> project where lives were at risk. When I say consulted, I mean I've done
>> something useful, not just popped around for a chat.
>
> And I have consulted with medical boards, hospitals, government
> agencies, and Boeing where lives were a critical part of what was at
> stake.
Well, aren't you a lucky one. And your degree enables you to talk to all of
them with authority and with complete removal of all risks, despite the
vastly different "industries" they are in? Please let me know what degree
that is, because I'll definitely grab one of them.
> But even with SAP or PeopleSoft there are important issues. If mistakes
> are made people go to jail. If mistakes are made people lose their
> investments. Even as basic a task as a bank ATM or accounting of credit
> card charges and payments, if incorrect, could be devastating.
>
>>>Good attempt at diversion but it fails.
>>
>> Gee thanks! The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind.
>
> Academic freedom: I call 'em as I see 'em.
OK, here's "street" freedom: I call 'em as I see 'em too.
>> Oh, bullshit. In terms of the use of a database, building a good database
>> requires understanding the business and a degree of ability. You can't
>> possibly teach me from the hallowed halls of Washington U how a parts
>> manufacturer would want to use his database. And you really don't need a
>> degree to learn about normalising a database.
>
> Why is it everyone that disagrees with me ends up with defacatory
> references? ;-)
I don't know, but you are certainly the common factor...
> Washington U is in St. Louis more than 1000 miles away from me. With
> respect to the two items you list above I respectfully disagree. Both
> because they are standard parts of many university curriculums but also
> because, once again, you are making assumptions on what is taught that
> are just plain ... well creative. Not once have I stated that I teach
> normalization: I don't.
I didn't say that you did. I was just saying that theory or academic
research was not something to be discarded entirely and that it could be
useful.
I still stand by original point, which is that no matter how good your
course is and how good you are, academic education by itself is as much use
as a hat full of dandruff.
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ą dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Daniel Morgan
> Yeah, right. It's taken me 20 years to learn all the things I've learned
> (some of the directly contradictory to current wisdom and state of the art)
> -- and you're going to teach them all that in a semester, just because they
> have a degree?
All 20 years no? But better that then what most people do to learn which
is to hack around at work getting a bit of this and a bit of that.
BTW: Check out how the Oracle crowd at c.d.o.servers responded. I find
it fascinating that many there took me up on the challenge and not one
person here thought an intellectual exercise of value.
That may explain much don't you think? ;-)
Clive Eisen
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> Yeah, right. It's taken me 20 years to learn all the things I've
>> learned (some of the directly contradictory to current wisdom and
>> state of the art) -- and you're going to teach them all that in a
>> semester, just because they have a degree?
>
>
> All 20 years no? But better that then what most people do to learn which
> is to hack around at work getting a bit of this and a bit of that.
>
> BTW: Check out how the Oracle crowd at c.d.o.servers responded. I find
> it fascinating that many there took me up on the challenge and not one
> person here thought an intellectual exercise of value.
>
> That may explain much don't you think? ;-)
>
I suspect you are correct - it explains a lot about you - most of us
here work FULL TIME for a living.
--
Clive
Serge Rielau
> BTW: Check out how the Oracle crowd at c.d.o.servers responded. I find
> it fascinating that many there took me up on the challenge and not one
> person here thought an intellectual exercise of value.
>
> That may explain much don't you think? ;-)
>
You didn't give any context in your post in the Oracle group.
The topic at hand in this thread here does not seem to be to solve an
SQL puzzle.
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
mpruet
> Comments in-line.
>
> Eric Rowell wrote:
>
> > I have mixed feelings on your class requirements and almost to the
> > point of being offended. Since I don't have a degree and am in my 20's
> > this would make me have to take my money somewhere else if it ever came
> > to be that I had to return to the programming world and would require
> > training form a company like yours.
>
> You wouldn't expect to get into a medical school without an
> undergraduate degree would you? Why would you expect a university to
> make an exception because the field is IT?
>
Daniel,
The most important thing that anyone can get from a higher education
is not the facts learned, but it is the learning process itself. Just
as the most important thing that anyone can get from working on a
research project is not the facts gained from that research project,
it is the learning of how to research.
It is pure arrogance to think that the only way to obtain knowledge is
to take a class in that topic. If we had followed that guideline then
--- well --- where did Marie Curie obtain knowledge? Where did Edison
learn about sound and light?
History also tells me that the knowledge of the world's brilliant
minds did not come by taking classes. It came from people who were
seeking knowledge, were questioning the world as it was, and were not
afraid to grow.
Daniel Morgan
And you would be correct on all points. Not once did I say a university
degree was the only way. What I said was that more and more employers
are demanding it because they have had their fill of great looking
resumes that don't equate with ability. And I'm not defending their
practice: Just stating the facts as they are.
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> Yeah, right. It's taken me 20 years to learn all the things I've learned
>> (some of the directly contradictory to current wisdom and state of the
>> art) -- and you're going to teach them all that in a semester, just
>> because they have a degree?
>
> All 20 years no? But better that then what most people do to learn which
> is to hack around at work getting a bit of this and a bit of that.
>
> BTW: Check out how the Oracle crowd at c.d.o.servers responded. I find
> it fascinating that many there took me up on the challenge and not one
> person here thought an intellectual exercise of value.
>
> That may explain much don't you think? ;-)
Yes, they're used to wasting their time on needless complexity. We're all
having lives.
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Obnoxio The Clown
Well, your facts are Just Plain Wrong (tm). I've not had any trouble using
my experience to overcome my lack of a degree. And anyone who thinks a
degree is any kind of guarantee that they're getting someone useful ...
well ... they deserve what they get.
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ą dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Daniel Morgan
> Well, your facts are Just Plain Wrong (tm). I've not had any trouble using
> my experience to overcome my lack of a degree. And anyone who thinks a
> degree is any kind of guarantee that they're getting someone useful ...
> well ... they deserve what they get.
A. You are in the UK not the US Pacific Northwest
B. Life does not come with guarantees. Not even for waking up tomorrow.
C. Aren't you in marketing? ;-)
Database Guy
> BTW: Check out how the Oracle crowd at c.d.o.servers responded. I find
> it fascinating that many there took me up on the challenge and not one
> person here thought [it] an intellectual exercise of value.
You find it fascinating that people who subscribe to an Oracle
newsgroup are more interested in an Oracle seminar than people who
don't?
Most people would think that unsurprising.
DG
Everett Mills
Since no one else tried it, here's a solution that immediately came to
mind:
The red hair remark tells that the oldest has no twin.
The question do you have any children indicates that he did not have any
older than 20.
Table
Create table kid_ages
(
oldest smallint,
middle smallint,
youngest smallint)
dataset
o m y
12, 3, 1
9, 4, 1
9, 2, 2
etc.
select * from kid_ages
where oldest + middle + youngest = number of windows counted
--EEM
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Morgan [mailto:damo...@x.washington.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 7:46 PM
To: inform...@iiug.org
Subject: Re: Oracle 10G
Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
> Yeah, that's true, Oracle is so difficult and incomprehensible, you do
need
> to be a rocket scientist to work with it. And since NASA is not doing
that
> well at the moment...
What is difficult for some ... is easy for others. The difficulty
in the program is not the database. The course would be equally
difficult taught with any RDBMS. The difficulty is that we teach
problem solving skills: Not just syntax.
Here's a problem given to students last night. As solvable in Informix
as in Oracle: Go for it.
====================================================================
Two mathematicians (Boris and Vladimir) met accidently for the first
time in 20 years.
They greet each other and begin catching up on their respective lives.
Boris asks Vladi
"Do you have any children?" "Yes" replies Vladimir, "I have three." "How
old are they?", asks Boris.
"The product of their ages is 36 and the sum of their ages is equal to
the number of windows on that building across the street." Boris looks
at the building, counts the windows then says "Vladi, that still doesn't
tell me the ages." "Ah, says Vladi, then I must tell you that the eldest
has red hair." "Oh", says Boris, "now I know their ages." What are the
ages of Boris' children?
====================================================================
Create a table, load it with data, and write a single SQL statement to
produce the data set required to deduce the answer ... then deduce away!
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damo...@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
sending to informix-list
Daniel Morgan
> Since no one else tried it, here's a solution that immediately came to
> mind:
>
> The red hair remark tells that the oldest has no twin.
> The question do you have any children indicates that he did not have any
> older than 20.
>
> Table
>
> Create table kid_ages
> (
> oldest smallint,
> middle smallint,
> youngest smallint)
>
> dataset
> o m y
> 12, 3, 1
> 9, 4, 1
> 9, 2, 2
> etc.
>
> select * from kid_ages
> where oldest + middle + youngest = number of windows counted
>
> --EEM
Nice to see. Here's one solution from that 'other' group:
STEP 1) CREATE TABLE ages (age NUMBWER);
STEP 2) INSERT INTO ages VALUES (1);
...
INSERT INTO ages VALUES (36);
COMMIT;
STEP 3)
select a1, a2, a3
from (
select c1.age a1, c2.age a2, c3.age a3, c1.age + c2.age + c3.age
totals
from ages c1, ages c2, ages c3
where c1.age * c2.age * c3.age = 36
and c1.age <= c2.age
and c2.age <= c3.age) t1
where exists (
select *
from ages c1, ages c2, ages c3
where c1.age * c2.age * c3.age = 36
and c1.age <= c2.age
and c2.age <= c3.age
and c1.age + c2.age + c3.age = t1.totals
having count(*) > 1)
and a3 > a1
and a3 > a2;
Obnoxio The Clown
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
>> Well, your facts are Just Plain Wrong (tm). I've not had any trouble
>> using my experience to overcome my lack of a degree. And anyone who
>> thinks a degree is any kind of guarantee that they're getting someone
>> useful ... well ... they deserve what they get.
>
> A. You are in the UK not the US Pacific Northwest
Didn't stop _you_ touting your facts as absolute.
> B. Life does not come with guarantees. Not even for waking up tomorrow.
Well, duh.
> C. Aren't you in marketing? ;-)
No.
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Ronald Cole
> BTW: Check out how the Oracle crowd at c.d.o.servers responded. I find
> it fascinating that many there took me up on the challenge and not one
> person here thought an intellectual exercise of value.
Show me a real world spec written like your "intellectual exercise".
The Clown doesn't need to prove his point if you're going to do it for
him.
> That may explain much don't you think? ;-)
Indeed it does! Does the expression "mental masturbation" mean
anything to you?
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ron...@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
Mark D. Stock
Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
>
>>Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>>
>>as in Oracle: Go for it.
>
> answer, though. (Not to put him on the spot or anything. :o)
I think you may be confusing me with someone that gives a shit. Or were you
referring to Mark C. Stock? :-)
It's not a question that I've ever encountered in my commercial experience,
but then I don't have a Degree. ;-)
As Monty Python could have said, "I've sorry, I have a Degree!" :-O
Cheers,
--
Mark.
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Mark D. Stock mailto:mds...@MydasSolutions.com |//////// /|
| Mydas Solutions Ltd http://MydasSolutions.com |///// / //|
| +-----------------------------------+//// / ///|
| |We value your comments, which have |/// / ////|
| |been recorded and automatically |// / /////|
| |emailed back to us for our records.|/ ////////|
+----------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
sending to informix-list
Mark D. Stock
Daniel Morgan wrote:
> BTW: Check out how the Oracle crowd at c.d.o.servers responded. I find
> it fascinating that many there took me up on the challenge and not one
> person here thought an intellectual exercise of value.
Perhaps we didn't consider it to be intellectual OR exercise?
> That may explain much don't you think? ;-)
Is this a trick question?... Is this to do with c.d.o.s being full of
theorists, and c.d.i being full of practitioners?
Neil Truby
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>
> > Well, your facts are Just Plain Wrong (tm). I've not had any trouble
using
> > my experience to overcome my lack of a degree. And anyone who thinks a
> > degree is any kind of guarantee that they're getting someone useful ...
> > well ... they deserve what they get.
>
> A. You are in the UK not the US Pacific Northwest
Perhaps this is an extension of a point I've made previously, of surprise
that US-only job hostings always specify a computing degree. This is
unusual in the UK: even if a graduate is required a degree in maths, physics
(such as I have) or even an arts subject will be acceptable.
So I guess your point is that a degree is a guarantee of something useful in
the US mainly because it is required by employers, and not necessarily for
any inherent worth?
Neil Truby
news:c2ibki$1t6tda$1...@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Perhaps this is an extension of a point I've made previously, of surprise
> that US-only job hostings always specify a computing degree. This is
> unusual in the UK: even if a graduate is required a degree in maths,
physics
> (such as I have) or even an arts subject will be acceptable.
Just in case anyone is reading, I meant to write: " ...even if a graduate
is required a degree in maths, physics (such as I have) or even an arts
subject will *often* be acceptable."
Daniel Morgan
> So I guess your point is that a degree is a guarantee of something useful in
> the US mainly because it is required by employers, and not necessarily for
> any inherent worth?
I wouldn't go so far as to say "guarantee of something useful" but it is
becoming the entrance requirement to avoid flipping burgers. And while
that is not universally true today ... we are close enough to when it
will be that you don't need a telescope to see that far ahead.
Daniel Morgan
> Just in case anyone is reading, I meant to write: " ...even if a graduate
> is required a degree in maths, physics (such as I have) or even an arts
> subject will *often* be acceptable."
Correct. Especially math, physics, chemistry, and similar degress that
demonstrate mental horsepower and a willingness to invest effort into
intellectual challenges.
Neil Truby
> Neil Truby wrote:
>
> > Just in case anyone is reading, I meant to write: " ...even if a
graduate
> > is required a degree in maths, physics (such as I have) or even an arts
> > subject will *often* be acceptable."
>
> Correct. Especially math, physics, chemistry, and similar degress that
> demonstrate mental horsepower and a willingness to invest effort into
> intellectual challenges.
Does a degree in, say, English Literature not demonstrate "mental horsepower
and a willingness to invest effort into intellectual challenges" then?
Actually, this is a somewhat rhetorical question. The answer (in my
opinion) is that it does. I think that a good degree in a subject with
academic rigour (ie not "media studies") demonstrates at least the potential
of strong capacity of thought and analysis skills. For this reason I find
the apparent obsession in the US with degrees in computer science and only
computer science unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted.
Fernando Nunes
> and a willingness to invest effort into intellectual challenges" then?
>
> Actually, this is a somewhat rhetorical question. The answer (in my
> opinion) is that it does. I think that a good degree in a subject with
> academic rigour (ie not "media studies") demonstrates at least the potential
> of strong capacity of thought and analysis skills. For this reason I find
> the apparent obsession in the US with degrees in computer science and only
> computer science unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted.
It is academic, but it's better than SPAM ;)
I would separate science degrees and humanistic degrees. Not in the sense that one is better, but I believe it can give you an hint on the orientation of one's mind.
2 cents (or less)
Regards.
Daniel Morgan
>>>is required a degree in maths, physics (such as I have) or even an arts
>>>subject will *often* be acceptable."
>>
>>Correct. Especially math, physics, chemistry, and similar degress that
>>demonstrate mental horsepower and a willingness to invest effort into
>>intellectual challenges.
>
>
> Does a degree in, say, English Literature not demonstrate "mental horsepower
> and a willingness to invest effort into intellectual challenges" then?
>
> Actually, this is a somewhat rhetorical question. The answer (in my
> opinion) is that it does. I think that a good degree in a subject with
> academic rigour (ie not "media studies") demonstrates at least the potential
> of strong capacity of thought and analysis skills. For this reason I find
> the apparent obsession in the US with degrees in computer science and only
> computer science unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted.
I agree with you. But I think the marketplace does tend to create
a heirarchy of value none-the-less.
Reminds me of why I asked an advisor about going for a Masters or PhD.
The answer ... a Masters indiates you didn't have what it takes to get a
PhD so just go straight for the PhD.
A preposterous prejudice ... but a real prejudice too. Often the
difference between the degrees is one of finances not ability.
Obnoxio The Clown
> Neil Truby wrote:
>
>> Just in case anyone is reading, I meant to write: " ...even if a
>> graduate is required a degree in maths, physics (such as I have) or even
>> an arts subject will *often* be acceptable."
>
> Correct. Especially math, physics, chemistry, and similar degress that
> demonstrate mental horsepower and a willingness to invest effort into
> intellectual challenges.
But not into spelling?
Obnoxio The Clown
> Neil Truby wrote:
>
>>>>is required a degree in maths, physics (such as I have) or even an arts
>>>>subject will *often* be acceptable."
>>>
>>>Correct. Especially math, physics, chemistry, and similar degress that
>>>demonstrate mental horsepower and a willingness to invest effort into
>>>intellectual challenges.
>>
>>
>> Does a degree in, say, English Literature not demonstrate "mental
>> horsepower and a willingness to invest effort into intellectual
>> challenges" then?
>>
>> Actually, this is a somewhat rhetorical question. The answer (in my
>> opinion) is that it does. I think that a good degree in a subject with
>> academic rigour (ie not "media studies") demonstrates at least the
>> potential
>> of strong capacity of thought and analysis skills. For this reason I
>> find the apparent obsession in the US with degrees in computer science
>> and only computer science unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted.
>
> I agree with you. But I think the marketplace does tend to create
> a heirarchy of value none-the-less.
No, definitely not spelling.
> Reminds me of why I asked an advisor about going for a Masters or PhD.
> The answer ... a Masters indiates you didn't have what it takes to get a
> PhD so just go straight for the PhD.
>
> A preposterous prejudice ... but a real prejudice too. Often the
> difference between the degrees is one of finances not ability.
--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Data Goob
have either no degree or a degree completely outside of math, or
computer science, in the arts, social sciences, or literature. They
think completely outside the box, ask all the right questions, and
demand systems that work with such glaring common sense as to puzzle
the computer science people. These non-computer types typically find
the straighest line between two points faster, and challenge the
computer people time and again with incredibly great business sense.
The computer people tend to succumb to innovation, rarely if ever
producing on their own any new ideas. We'll take the artists any day!
mpruet
Whew! I certainly hope so - expecially since -- well -- my advanced
degrees were in musicology. Of course - we spent a lot of time doing
set theory, developing computer analysis software, acoustical
analysis, etc. My first programming pride and joy was when I figured
out how to simulate musical encoding using a system that allowed me to
maintain the difference between a c-sharp and a d-flat, so that it
could distinguish between a dominant-7th and a German-6th chord, or
could recognize the difference between a ii-#5-b6 and a
flat-VII-Mm7...
Of course we also spent a good deal of time studying Boethesus, Niedt,
Kernberger, and such as well... ;-)
M.P.
Neil Truby
news:40676184.04030...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Truby" <neil....@ardenta.com> wrote in message
news:<c2id12$1tm8qo$1...@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Neil Truby" <neil....@ardenta.com> wrote in message
> > news:c2ibki$1t6tda$1...@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "Daniel Morgan" <damo...@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:1078445795.713139@yasure...
> Of course we also spent a good deal of time studying Boethesus, Niedt,
> Kernberger, and such as well... ;-)
Are they beers?
mpruet
Or Meyer-beer (for those who like late romantic German Opera...)