Re^2: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures?

Why on Earth would you want to swap your RDBMS?

If you're paying for Oracle it's because you need Oracle. And having paid for it you'd better use it.

If you don't know who 'Ask Tom' then perhaps you should find out. His advice is invaluable in building large scalable Oracle databases.

Personally, I'd use stored procedures for virtually all database access. I'd also put all the business logic I could into the the procs. Coupling your data and business logic protects your application.

It's the front ends that should be easily swapped out and changed not the database.

As for maintaince nightmares. Yup, I've seen those, Embedded dynamic SQL in Java code was the worst.

As for the Oracle client C library, yes its blisteringly fast.

Comment on Re^2: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures? by Tanktalus (Canon) on Nov 24, 2006 at 22:00 UTC
Why on Earth would I swap my RDBMS? Well, because IBM or MS or whomever offered a much better deal. I've heard that these companies (including Oracle, of course) compete quite a bit ;-) What you do now can seriously impact how easy it is to switch, should your non-technical management decree it. If you take advantage of Oracle-specific functions, you can drastically speed up your queries, speed up your development, and hurt your ability to switch should the need arise. Kind of a trade-off. Personally, though, while I understand the concept and need for the ability to switch, I'd still go with whatever gave me the maximum benefit under the current infrastructure, without impacting maintainability in a negative way, and then tell management what the costs were to switch our application for when other sales guys approach them to get us to switch. It still may come out as a benefit to switch because the switch itself is a one-time charge, while the licensing and support is an ongoing charge.	[reply]
Re^4: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures? by Jonathan (Curate) on Dec 04, 2006 at 12:26 UTC
The cost of database licenses is a relatively minor component in the total cost of the whole project. If you have a pool of Oracle developers who understand your application and business then you're pretty well locked in. Again, this is from a large project/large corporation perspective.	[reply]
Re^4: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures? by nanotasher (Novice) on Jul 09, 2008 at 15:44 UTC
That seems a little silly to me. Hypothetically speaking, of course.. If I bought Oracle, then MS offered me a better deal, I'd have sunk costs from buying Oracle. It wouldn't make any sense to switch to Oracle. I think the nightmare of transporting the data from one database to another more than offsets the nightmare of tying yourself to a vendor's stored procedure methods (which, by the way, exist in all major RDBMS software).	[reply]
Re^3: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures? by exussum0 (Vicar) on Nov 25, 2006 at 04:30 UTC
Why on Earth would you want to swap your RDBMS? If you're paying for Oracle it's because you need Oracle. And having paid for it you'd better use it. 'cause it's life. Sometimes changes happen due to cost, politics and various other reasons. It just happens. As for what is swapped out, a well designed system can have any layer of responsibility removed and replaced due to light coupling. i.e. Dont' do database calls from your template system.	[reply]
Re^3: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures? by andreas1234567 (Vicar) on Nov 25, 2006 at 13:00 UTC
Why on Earth would you want to swap your RDBMS? I never wrote that. I'm exploring a new platform of curiosity, trying so see what it has to offer. So far it seems very promising. If you don't know who 'Ask Tom' then perhaps you should find cout. I bought one of his books and I will continue to read his columns. As for maintaince nightmares. Yup, I've seen those, Embedded dynamic SQL in Java code was the worst. I second that. As for the Oracle client C library, yes its blisteringly fast. Do you mean replacing DBD::Oracle with some kind of compiled C routines? Andreas --	[reply]
Re^4: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures? by Jonathan (Curate) on Dec 04, 2006 at 12:30 UTC
`Do you mean replacing DBD::Oracle with some kind of compiled C routines?` No, DBD::Oracle uses the Oracle client software. You don't need to use any 'C' code.	[reply] [d/l]


go ahead... be a heretic
	PerlMonks