RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
You are able to run your SQL without schema-statistics, even if OPTIMIZER_MODE=CHOOSE ? Hemant At 10:54 AM 20-10-03 -0800, you wrote: Didn't I mention that? Bug 2954921... simple query blows away one of their internal views. Here's a snippet of the text from the TAR. select a.* from nt_admin_place a, nt_country c where c.country_id in (select id from TEMP_ADMINPLACE union select id from TEMP_ADMINBORDER ) and a.admin_level = 1 and c.country_id = a.admin_place_id order by a.admin_place_id ERROR at line 1: ORA-00604: error occurred at recursive SQL level 1 ORA-00904: "VW_NSO_1"."$nso_col_1": invalid identifier -Original Message- Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 1:14 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L what is the bug? > > From: "Bellow, Bambi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 02:04:26 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > Unfortunately, our applications fall into the second category. And due to > the complexity of the queries being run, attempting to turn on CBO also > activates a bug for which Oracle has a fix in v10.1 but will not do a > backport, and so, until we are ready to go to 10.1, we are stuck with RBO, > and because we develop a commercial product in use by the general public, > often in realtime situations (while people are driving their vehicles), our > need for QA is extraordinarily high, and a change in underlying platform > would trigger many many manmonths of labor. In short, if we were to > schedule an upgrade for business purposes on our time schedule, it would be > one thing, but we do not want to be forced into an upgrade by external > circumstance (read: Oracle bug). So, RBO is for us at this juncture. > > Bambi. > -Original Message- > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:44 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > generally speaking there are two groups of people using the RBO. > > 1. The DBAs who have been around for 15 years and doesnt read release notes > and doesnt feel the need to read release notes or documentation because he > knows everything. He may have tried the CBO in 1995 and had 1-2 bad > experiences. > > 2. People who have to because they are using off the shelf cross platform > applications. They are required to use the RBO or their support contract for > these products will be invalidated. They are generally using the RBO for a > combination of 3 reasons. > > 1. They dont know what they are doing. > 2. They have a 'layered complex view' model. that goes multi-levels deep, > and has complex functions. They do this to make it easier to port to > multiple types of databases and keep prices down. CBO doesnt work well in > this condition. > 3. They tuned for the RBO 10 years ago and do not want to spend the time or > money tuning for the CBO because Oracle is just one of many databases that > they port to. They are trying to keep costs down for small shops and have to > really watch expenses. Most people who buy these applications dont have > large budgets. > > > > > > From: "Stephane Paquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 01:29:26 EDT > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > > > 38 is my age, Mladen is 42 > > > > Stephane > > > > -Original Message- > > Bellow, Bambi > > Sent: 20 octobre, 2003 13:04 > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 better... > > just a jump to the left... > > > > One thing about living in the past... > > The rent sure is cheaper. > > > > Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) > > -Original Message- > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:44 AM > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Is 38 that old ??? > > > > Stephane > > > > -Original Message- > > Mladen Gogala > > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 18:00 > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of > > the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born > > in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find > > them. > > On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > > > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > > > > > Stephane > > > > > > -Original Message- > &g
RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
That's the bug number they gave me. -Original Message- Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:04 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L is that the correct number? its not on metalink. > > From: "Bellow, Bambi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 02:54:25 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > Didn't I mention that? Bug 2954921... simple query blows away one of their > internal views. Here's a snippet of the text from the TAR. > > select a.* from nt_admin_place a, nt_country c where c.country_id in > (select id from TEMP_ADMINPLACE union select id from TEMP_ADMINBORDER ) > and a.admin_level = 1 and c.country_id = a.admin_place_id > order by a.admin_place_id > > ERROR at line 1: > ORA-00604: error occurred at recursive SQL level 1 > ORA-00904: "VW_NSO_1"."$nso_col_1": invalid identifier > > > -Original Message- > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 1:14 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > what is the bug? > > > > From: "Bellow, Bambi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 02:04:26 EDT > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > > > Unfortunately, our applications fall into the second category. And due to > > the complexity of the queries being run, attempting to turn on CBO also > > activates a bug for which Oracle has a fix in v10.1 but will not do a > > backport, and so, until we are ready to go to 10.1, we are stuck with RBO, > > and because we develop a commercial product in use by the general public, > > often in realtime situations (while people are driving their vehicles), > our > > need for QA is extraordinarily high, and a change in underlying platform > > would trigger many many manmonths of labor. In short, if we were to > > schedule an upgrade for business purposes on our time schedule, it would > be > > one thing, but we do not want to be forced into an upgrade by external > > circumstance (read: Oracle bug). So, RBO is for us at this juncture. > > > > Bambi. > > -Original Message- > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:44 PM > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > generally speaking there are two groups of people using the RBO. > > > > 1. The DBAs who have been around for 15 years and doesnt read release > notes > > and doesnt feel the need to read release notes or documentation because he > > knows everything. He may have tried the CBO in 1995 and had 1-2 bad > > experiences. > > > > 2. People who have to because they are using off the shelf cross platform > > applications. They are required to use the RBO or their support contract > for > > these products will be invalidated. They are generally using the RBO for a > > combination of 3 reasons. > > > > 1. They dont know what they are doing. > > 2. They have a 'layered complex view' model. that goes multi-levels deep, > > and has complex functions. They do this to make it easier to port to > > multiple types of databases and keep prices down. CBO doesnt work well in > > this condition. > > 3. They tuned for the RBO 10 years ago and do not want to spend the time > or > > money tuning for the CBO because Oracle is just one of many databases that > > they port to. They are trying to keep costs down for small shops and have > to > > really watch expenses. Most people who buy these applications dont have > > large budgets. > > > > > > > > > > From: "Stephane Paquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 01:29:26 EDT > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > > > > > 38 is my age, Mladen is 42 > > > > > > Stephane > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > Bellow, Bambi > > > Sent: 20 octobre, 2003 13:04 > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > > > > Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 > better... > > > just a jump to the left... > > > > > > One thing about living in the past... > > > The rent sure is cheaper. > > > > > > Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) > > > -Original Message- > >
RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
is that the correct number? its not on metalink. > > From: "Bellow, Bambi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 02:54:25 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > Didn't I mention that? Bug 2954921... simple query blows away one of their > internal views. Here's a snippet of the text from the TAR. > > select a.* from nt_admin_place a, nt_country c where c.country_id in > (select id from TEMP_ADMINPLACE union select id from TEMP_ADMINBORDER ) > and a.admin_level = 1 and c.country_id = a.admin_place_id > order by a.admin_place_id > > ERROR at line 1: > ORA-00604: error occurred at recursive SQL level 1 > ORA-00904: "VW_NSO_1"."$nso_col_1": invalid identifier > > > -Original Message- > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 1:14 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > what is the bug? > > > > From: "Bellow, Bambi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 02:04:26 EDT > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > > > Unfortunately, our applications fall into the second category. And due to > > the complexity of the queries being run, attempting to turn on CBO also > > activates a bug for which Oracle has a fix in v10.1 but will not do a > > backport, and so, until we are ready to go to 10.1, we are stuck with RBO, > > and because we develop a commercial product in use by the general public, > > often in realtime situations (while people are driving their vehicles), > our > > need for QA is extraordinarily high, and a change in underlying platform > > would trigger many many manmonths of labor. In short, if we were to > > schedule an upgrade for business purposes on our time schedule, it would > be > > one thing, but we do not want to be forced into an upgrade by external > > circumstance (read: Oracle bug). So, RBO is for us at this juncture. > > > > Bambi. > > -Original Message- > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:44 PM > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > generally speaking there are two groups of people using the RBO. > > > > 1. The DBAs who have been around for 15 years and doesnt read release > notes > > and doesnt feel the need to read release notes or documentation because he > > knows everything. He may have tried the CBO in 1995 and had 1-2 bad > > experiences. > > > > 2. People who have to because they are using off the shelf cross platform > > applications. They are required to use the RBO or their support contract > for > > these products will be invalidated. They are generally using the RBO for a > > combination of 3 reasons. > > > > 1. They dont know what they are doing. > > 2. They have a 'layered complex view' model. that goes multi-levels deep, > > and has complex functions. They do this to make it easier to port to > > multiple types of databases and keep prices down. CBO doesnt work well in > > this condition. > > 3. They tuned for the RBO 10 years ago and do not want to spend the time > or > > money tuning for the CBO because Oracle is just one of many databases that > > they port to. They are trying to keep costs down for small shops and have > to > > really watch expenses. Most people who buy these applications dont have > > large budgets. > > > > > > > > > > From: "Stephane Paquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 01:29:26 EDT > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > > > > > 38 is my age, Mladen is 42 > > > > > > Stephane > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > Bellow, Bambi > > > Sent: 20 octobre, 2003 13:04 > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > > > > Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 > better... > > > just a jump to the left... > > > > > > One thing about living in the past... > > > The rent sure is cheaper. > > > > > > Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) > > > -Original Message- > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:44 AM > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > > > >
RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
Didn't I mention that? Bug 2954921... simple query blows away one of their internal views. Here's a snippet of the text from the TAR. select a.* from nt_admin_place a, nt_country c where c.country_id in (select id from TEMP_ADMINPLACE union select id from TEMP_ADMINBORDER ) and a.admin_level = 1 and c.country_id = a.admin_place_id order by a.admin_place_id ERROR at line 1: ORA-00604: error occurred at recursive SQL level 1 ORA-00904: "VW_NSO_1"."$nso_col_1": invalid identifier -Original Message- Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 1:14 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L what is the bug? > > From: "Bellow, Bambi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 02:04:26 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > Unfortunately, our applications fall into the second category. And due to > the complexity of the queries being run, attempting to turn on CBO also > activates a bug for which Oracle has a fix in v10.1 but will not do a > backport, and so, until we are ready to go to 10.1, we are stuck with RBO, > and because we develop a commercial product in use by the general public, > often in realtime situations (while people are driving their vehicles), our > need for QA is extraordinarily high, and a change in underlying platform > would trigger many many manmonths of labor. In short, if we were to > schedule an upgrade for business purposes on our time schedule, it would be > one thing, but we do not want to be forced into an upgrade by external > circumstance (read: Oracle bug). So, RBO is for us at this juncture. > > Bambi. > -Original Message- > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:44 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > generally speaking there are two groups of people using the RBO. > > 1. The DBAs who have been around for 15 years and doesnt read release notes > and doesnt feel the need to read release notes or documentation because he > knows everything. He may have tried the CBO in 1995 and had 1-2 bad > experiences. > > 2. People who have to because they are using off the shelf cross platform > applications. They are required to use the RBO or their support contract for > these products will be invalidated. They are generally using the RBO for a > combination of 3 reasons. > > 1. They dont know what they are doing. > 2. They have a 'layered complex view' model. that goes multi-levels deep, > and has complex functions. They do this to make it easier to port to > multiple types of databases and keep prices down. CBO doesnt work well in > this condition. > 3. They tuned for the RBO 10 years ago and do not want to spend the time or > money tuning for the CBO because Oracle is just one of many databases that > they port to. They are trying to keep costs down for small shops and have to > really watch expenses. Most people who buy these applications dont have > large budgets. > > > > > > From: "Stephane Paquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 01:29:26 EDT > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > > > 38 is my age, Mladen is 42 > > > > Stephane > > > > -Original Message- > > Bellow, Bambi > > Sent: 20 octobre, 2003 13:04 > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 better... > > just a jump to the left... > > > > One thing about living in the past... > > The rent sure is cheaper. > > > > Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) > > -Original Message- > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:44 AM > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Is 38 that old ??? > > > > Stephane > > > > -Original Message- > > Mladen Gogala > > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 18:00 > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of > > the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born > > in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find > > them. > > On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > > > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > > > > > Stephane > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > Mladen Gogala > > > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 > > > To: Multiple rec
RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
what is the bug? > > From: "Bellow, Bambi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 02:04:26 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > Unfortunately, our applications fall into the second category. And due to > the complexity of the queries being run, attempting to turn on CBO also > activates a bug for which Oracle has a fix in v10.1 but will not do a > backport, and so, until we are ready to go to 10.1, we are stuck with RBO, > and because we develop a commercial product in use by the general public, > often in realtime situations (while people are driving their vehicles), our > need for QA is extraordinarily high, and a change in underlying platform > would trigger many many manmonths of labor. In short, if we were to > schedule an upgrade for business purposes on our time schedule, it would be > one thing, but we do not want to be forced into an upgrade by external > circumstance (read: Oracle bug). So, RBO is for us at this juncture. > > Bambi. > -Original Message- > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:44 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > generally speaking there are two groups of people using the RBO. > > 1. The DBAs who have been around for 15 years and doesnt read release notes > and doesnt feel the need to read release notes or documentation because he > knows everything. He may have tried the CBO in 1995 and had 1-2 bad > experiences. > > 2. People who have to because they are using off the shelf cross platform > applications. They are required to use the RBO or their support contract for > these products will be invalidated. They are generally using the RBO for a > combination of 3 reasons. > > 1. They dont know what they are doing. > 2. They have a 'layered complex view' model. that goes multi-levels deep, > and has complex functions. They do this to make it easier to port to > multiple types of databases and keep prices down. CBO doesnt work well in > this condition. > 3. They tuned for the RBO 10 years ago and do not want to spend the time or > money tuning for the CBO because Oracle is just one of many databases that > they port to. They are trying to keep costs down for small shops and have to > really watch expenses. Most people who buy these applications dont have > large budgets. > > > > > > From: "Stephane Paquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 01:29:26 EDT > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > > > 38 is my age, Mladen is 42 > > > > Stephane > > > > -Original Message- > > Bellow, Bambi > > Sent: 20 octobre, 2003 13:04 > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 better... > > just a jump to the left... > > > > One thing about living in the past... > > The rent sure is cheaper. > > > > Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) > > -Original Message- > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:44 AM > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Is 38 that old ??? > > > > Stephane > > > > -Original Message- > > Mladen Gogala > > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 18:00 > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of > > the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born > > in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find > > them. > > On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > > > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > > > > > Stephane > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > Mladen Gogala > > > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > > > > Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, > > > with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) > > > and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. > > > Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the > > > datatype > > > LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot > > > to > > > tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm > > > missing > > >
RE: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
Unfortunately, our applications fall into the second category. And due to the complexity of the queries being run, attempting to turn on CBO also activates a bug for which Oracle has a fix in v10.1 but will not do a backport, and so, until we are ready to go to 10.1, we are stuck with RBO, and because we develop a commercial product in use by the general public, often in realtime situations (while people are driving their vehicles), our need for QA is extraordinarily high, and a change in underlying platform would trigger many many manmonths of labor. In short, if we were to schedule an upgrade for business purposes on our time schedule, it would be one thing, but we do not want to be forced into an upgrade by external circumstance (read: Oracle bug). So, RBO is for us at this juncture. Bambi. -Original Message- Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:44 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L generally speaking there are two groups of people using the RBO. 1. The DBAs who have been around for 15 years and doesnt read release notes and doesnt feel the need to read release notes or documentation because he knows everything. He may have tried the CBO in 1995 and had 1-2 bad experiences. 2. People who have to because they are using off the shelf cross platform applications. They are required to use the RBO or their support contract for these products will be invalidated. They are generally using the RBO for a combination of 3 reasons. 1. They dont know what they are doing. 2. They have a 'layered complex view' model. that goes multi-levels deep, and has complex functions. They do this to make it easier to port to multiple types of databases and keep prices down. CBO doesnt work well in this condition. 3. They tuned for the RBO 10 years ago and do not want to spend the time or money tuning for the CBO because Oracle is just one of many databases that they port to. They are trying to keep costs down for small shops and have to really watch expenses. Most people who buy these applications dont have large budgets. > > From: "Stephane Paquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 01:29:26 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > 38 is my age, Mladen is 42 > > Stephane > > -Original Message- > Bellow, Bambi > Sent: 20 octobre, 2003 13:04 > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 better... > just a jump to the left... > > One thing about living in the past... > The rent sure is cheaper. > > Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) > -Original Message- > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:44 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Is 38 that old ??? > > Stephane > > -Original Message- > Mladen Gogala > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 18:00 > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of > the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born > in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find > them. > On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > > > Stephane > > > > -Original Message- > > Mladen Gogala > > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, > > with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) > > and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. > > Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the > > datatype > > LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot > > to > > tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm > > missing > > even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a > > very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge > > and > > buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language > > that > > has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken > > away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 > > will > > never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to > > UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for > > generating > > simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... > > On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: > > > Friends -- > > > > > > I just got
Re: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
generally speaking there are two groups of people using the RBO. 1. The DBAs who have been around for 15 years and doesnt read release notes and doesnt feel the need to read release notes or documentation because he knows everything. He may have tried the CBO in 1995 and had 1-2 bad experiences. 2. People who have to because they are using off the shelf cross platform applications. They are required to use the RBO or their support contract for these products will be invalidated. They are generally using the RBO for a combination of 3 reasons. 1. They dont know what they are doing. 2. They have a 'layered complex view' model. that goes multi-levels deep, and has complex functions. They do this to make it easier to port to multiple types of databases and keep prices down. CBO doesnt work well in this condition. 3. They tuned for the RBO 10 years ago and do not want to spend the time or money tuning for the CBO because Oracle is just one of many databases that they port to. They are trying to keep costs down for small shops and have to really watch expenses. Most people who buy these applications dont have large budgets. > > From: "Stephane Paquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/10/20 Mon PM 01:29:26 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away? > > 38 is my age, Mladen is 42 > > Stephane > > -Original Message- > Bellow, Bambi > Sent: 20 octobre, 2003 13:04 > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 better... > just a jump to the left... > > One thing about living in the past... > The rent sure is cheaper. > > Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) > -Original Message- > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:44 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Is 38 that old ??? > > Stephane > > -Original Message- > Mladen Gogala > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 18:00 > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of > the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born > in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find > them. > On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > > > Stephane > > > > -Original Message- > > Mladen Gogala > > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > > > > Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, > > with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) > > and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. > > Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the > > datatype > > LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot > > to > > tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm > > missing > > even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a > > very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge > > and > > buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language > > that > > has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken > > away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 > > will > > never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to > > UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for > > generating > > simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... > > On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: > > > Friends -- > > > > > > I just got back from a week of benchmarking and one of the "issues" > > > that > > > came out of it was, due to some rather, um, interesting, coding > > > techniques, > > > running schema level statistics both wrecked performance *and* > > > produced > > > Oracle Bug 2954921. So we had to remove the statistics before > > running > > > additional tests. Of course, RBO is being desupported soon, so we > > > really > > > ought to modify things. But, this brings up another issue. See, > > > Oracle > > > says, and here I am paraphrasing, of course, that... > > > > > > RBO is going to die. We're not supporting it anymore. Nope. Once > > > you get > > > off of 9.2, that's it. Finito. Hasta la vista, Ba-bee. Well, no, > > > it's
RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
38 is my age, Mladen is 42 Stephane -Original Message- Bellow, Bambi Sent: 20 octobre, 2003 13:04 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 better... just a jump to the left... One thing about living in the past... The rent sure is cheaper. Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) -Original Message- Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:44 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Is 38 that old ??? Stephane -Original Message- Mladen Gogala Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 18:00 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find them. On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > Stephane > > -Original Message- > Mladen Gogala > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, > with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) > and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. > Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the > datatype > LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot > to > tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm > missing > even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a > very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge > and > buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language > that > has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken > away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 > will > never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to > UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for > generating > simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... > On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: > > Friends -- > > > > I just got back from a week of benchmarking and one of the "issues" > > that > > came out of it was, due to some rather, um, interesting, coding > > techniques, > > running schema level statistics both wrecked performance *and* > > produced > > Oracle Bug 2954921. So we had to remove the statistics before > running > > additional tests. Of course, RBO is being desupported soon, so we > > really > > ought to modify things. But, this brings up another issue. See, > > Oracle > > says, and here I am paraphrasing, of course, that... > > > > RBO is going to die. We're not supporting it anymore. Nope. Once > > you get > > off of 9.2, that's it. Finito. Hasta la vista, Ba-bee. Well, no, > > it's not > > really going away. YET. It will still be behind the scenes for > > awhile. But > > sooner or later, it's going to die. You've been warned. This > isn't > > going > > to be like Forms2.3. No. We're serious this time. We put in all > > these > > great features that y'all aren't using because your code is > dependent > > on RBO > > and RBO can't use these features and that sucks because we really > > like > > these > > features. Now, we figure that a slim minority of people... maybe > > 20%... are > > still using RBO. 20%. Barely noticeable. (dinosaurs, grumble, > > grumble) > > Well, we're taking it away. We're going to drag you into the new > > millenium > > and you're going to use CBO. And you're going to like it. We'll > > leave RBO > > in there for awhile, but one day you'll wake up and it will be > gone. > > Gone, > > I tell you, GONE! Just you wait. 5, 10 years from now, RBO will > be > > a > > mere > > a memory. Just like Forms2.3. Oh, and that "select * from tab;" > > that > > you're doing every once in awhile to see if it still works, you > just > > wait, > > someday *someday* we're going to take *that* away too. And you're > > just > > going to have to live with it. HAhahahaha! > > > > So, what do you think? Will v5 ever really go away? And when will > > RBO just > > stop working? > > > > Bambi. > > -- > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > > -- > > Author: Bellow, Bambi > > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting > services > > > - > > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > > also send the HELP command for other information (like > subscribing). > > > > Mladen Gogala > Oracle DBA > > > > Note: > This message is for the named person's use only
RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
Let's do the time warp again! 2003-1961=42... But, I liked 1999 better... just a jump to the left... One thing about living in the past... The rent sure is cheaper. Bambi (feeling that 38 is a spry young thang) -Original Message- Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:44 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Is 38 that old ??? Stephane -Original Message- Mladen Gogala Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 18:00 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find them. On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > Stephane > > -Original Message- > Mladen Gogala > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, > with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) > and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. > Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the > datatype > LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot > to > tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm > missing > even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a > very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge > and > buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language > that > has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken > away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 > will > never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to > UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for > generating > simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... > On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: > > Friends -- > > > > I just got back from a week of benchmarking and one of the "issues" > > that > > came out of it was, due to some rather, um, interesting, coding > > techniques, > > running schema level statistics both wrecked performance *and* > > produced > > Oracle Bug 2954921. So we had to remove the statistics before > running > > additional tests. Of course, RBO is being desupported soon, so we > > really > > ought to modify things. But, this brings up another issue. See, > > Oracle > > says, and here I am paraphrasing, of course, that... > > > > RBO is going to die. We're not supporting it anymore. Nope. Once > > you get > > off of 9.2, that's it. Finito. Hasta la vista, Ba-bee. Well, no, > > it's not > > really going away. YET. It will still be behind the scenes for > > awhile. But > > sooner or later, it's going to die. You've been warned. This > isn't > > going > > to be like Forms2.3. No. We're serious this time. We put in all > > these > > great features that y'all aren't using because your code is > dependent > > on RBO > > and RBO can't use these features and that sucks because we really > > like > > these > > features. Now, we figure that a slim minority of people... maybe > > 20%... are > > still using RBO. 20%. Barely noticeable. (dinosaurs, grumble, > > grumble) > > Well, we're taking it away. We're going to drag you into the new > > millenium > > and you're going to use CBO. And you're going to like it. We'll > > leave RBO > > in there for awhile, but one day you'll wake up and it will be > gone. > > Gone, > > I tell you, GONE! Just you wait. 5, 10 years from now, RBO will > be > > a > > mere > > a memory. Just like Forms2.3. Oh, and that "select * from tab;" > > that > > you're doing every once in awhile to see if it still works, you > just > > wait, > > someday *someday* we're going to take *that* away too. And you're > > just > > going to have to live with it. HAhahahaha! > > > > So, what do you think? Will v5 ever really go away? And when will > > RBO just > > stop working? > > > > Bambi. > > -- > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > > -- > > Author: Bellow, Bambi > > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting > services > > > - > > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > > also send the HELP command for other information (like > subscribing). > > > > Mladen Gogala > Oracle DBA > > > > Note: > This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain > confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No > confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any > mistrans
RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
Is 38 that old ??? Stephane -Original Message- Mladen Gogala Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 18:00 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find them. On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > Stephane > > -Original Message- > Mladen Gogala > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, > with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) > and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. > Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the > datatype > LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot > to > tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm > missing > even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a > very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge > and > buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language > that > has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken > away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 > will > never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to > UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for > generating > simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... > On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: > > Friends -- > > > > I just got back from a week of benchmarking and one of the "issues" > > that > > came out of it was, due to some rather, um, interesting, coding > > techniques, > > running schema level statistics both wrecked performance *and* > > produced > > Oracle Bug 2954921. So we had to remove the statistics before > running > > additional tests. Of course, RBO is being desupported soon, so we > > really > > ought to modify things. But, this brings up another issue. See, > > Oracle > > says, and here I am paraphrasing, of course, that... > > > > RBO is going to die. We're not supporting it anymore. Nope. Once > > you get > > off of 9.2, that's it. Finito. Hasta la vista, Ba-bee. Well, no, > > it's not > > really going away. YET. It will still be behind the scenes for > > awhile. But > > sooner or later, it's going to die. You've been warned. This > isn't > > going > > to be like Forms2.3. No. We're serious this time. We put in all > > these > > great features that y'all aren't using because your code is > dependent > > on RBO > > and RBO can't use these features and that sucks because we really > > like > > these > > features. Now, we figure that a slim minority of people... maybe > > 20%... are > > still using RBO. 20%. Barely noticeable. (dinosaurs, grumble, > > grumble) > > Well, we're taking it away. We're going to drag you into the new > > millenium > > and you're going to use CBO. And you're going to like it. We'll > > leave RBO > > in there for awhile, but one day you'll wake up and it will be > gone. > > Gone, > > I tell you, GONE! Just you wait. 5, 10 years from now, RBO will > be > > a > > mere > > a memory. Just like Forms2.3. Oh, and that "select * from tab;" > > that > > you're doing every once in awhile to see if it still works, you > just > > wait, > > someday *someday* we're going to take *that* away too. And you're > > just > > going to have to live with it. HAhahahaha! > > > > So, what do you think? Will v5 ever really go away? And when will > > RBO just > > stop working? > > > > Bambi. > > -- > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > > -- > > Author: Bellow, Bambi > > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting > services > > > - > > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > > also send the HELP command for other information (like > subscribing). > > > > Mladen Gogala > Oracle DBA > > > > Note: > This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain > confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No > confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any > mistransmission. > If > you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and > all > copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and > notify the > sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, > distribute, > print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended > rec
RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
At least we knew why they called it afiedt.buf. -Original Message- Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:00 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find them. On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: > And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) > > Stephane > > -Original Message- > Mladen Gogala > Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, > with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) > and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. > Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the > datatype > LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot > to > tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm > missing > even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a > very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge > and > buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language > that > has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken > away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 > will > never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to > UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for > generating > simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... > On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: > > Friends -- > > > > I just got back from a week of benchmarking and one of the "issues" > > that > > came out of it was, due to some rather, um, interesting, coding > > techniques, > > running schema level statistics both wrecked performance *and* > > produced > > Oracle Bug 2954921. So we had to remove the statistics before > running > > additional tests. Of course, RBO is being desupported soon, so we > > really > > ought to modify things. But, this brings up another issue. See, > > Oracle > > says, and here I am paraphrasing, of course, that... > > > > RBO is going to die. We're not supporting it anymore. Nope. Once > > you get > > off of 9.2, that's it. Finito. Hasta la vista, Ba-bee. Well, no, > > it's not > > really going away. YET. It will still be behind the scenes for > > awhile. But > > sooner or later, it's going to die. You've been warned. This > isn't > > going > > to be like Forms2.3. No. We're serious this time. We put in all > > these > > great features that y'all aren't using because your code is > dependent > > on RBO > > and RBO can't use these features and that sucks because we really > > like > > these > > features. Now, we figure that a slim minority of people... maybe > > 20%... are > > still using RBO. 20%. Barely noticeable. (dinosaurs, grumble, > > grumble) > > Well, we're taking it away. We're going to drag you into the new > > millenium > > and you're going to use CBO. And you're going to like it. We'll > > leave RBO > > in there for awhile, but one day you'll wake up and it will be > gone. > > Gone, > > I tell you, GONE! Just you wait. 5, 10 years from now, RBO will > be > > a > > mere > > a memory. Just like Forms2.3. Oh, and that "select * from tab;" > > that > > you're doing every once in awhile to see if it still works, you > just > > wait, > > someday *someday* we're going to take *that* away too. And you're > > just > > going to have to live with it. HAhahahaha! > > > > So, what do you think? Will v5 ever really go away? And when will > > RBO just > > stop working? > > > > Bambi. > > -- > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > > -- > > Author: Bellow, Bambi > > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting > services > > > - > > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > > also send the HELP command for other information (like > subscribing). > > > > Mladen Gogala > Oracle DBA > > > > Note: > This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain > confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No > confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any > mistransmission. > If > you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and > all > copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and > notify the > sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, > distribute, > print, or copy any part of thi
Re: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
Ah, another one who can claim experience. According to one of the previous post it's a genuine gold mine these days. Being born in the Jurassic (1961) has its advantages, but I have yet to find them. On 10/17/2003 05:29:31 PM, Stephane Paquette wrote: And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) Stephane -Original Message- Mladen Gogala Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the datatype LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot to tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm missing even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge and buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language that has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 will never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for generating simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: > Friends -- > > I just got back from a week of benchmarking and one of the "issues" > that > came out of it was, due to some rather, um, interesting, coding > techniques, > running schema level statistics both wrecked performance *and* > produced > Oracle Bug 2954921. So we had to remove the statistics before running > additional tests. Of course, RBO is being desupported soon, so we > really > ought to modify things. But, this brings up another issue. See, > Oracle > says, and here I am paraphrasing, of course, that... > > RBO is going to die. We're not supporting it anymore. Nope. Once > you get > off of 9.2, that's it. Finito. Hasta la vista, Ba-bee. Well, no, > it's not > really going away. YET. It will still be behind the scenes for > awhile. But > sooner or later, it's going to die. You've been warned. This isn't > going > to be like Forms2.3. No. We're serious this time. We put in all > these > great features that y'all aren't using because your code is dependent > on RBO > and RBO can't use these features and that sucks because we really > like > these > features. Now, we figure that a slim minority of people... maybe > 20%... are > still using RBO. 20%. Barely noticeable. (dinosaurs, grumble, > grumble) > Well, we're taking it away. We're going to drag you into the new > millenium > and you're going to use CBO. And you're going to like it. We'll > leave RBO > in there for awhile, but one day you'll wake up and it will be gone. > Gone, > I tell you, GONE! Just you wait. 5, 10 years from now, RBO will be > a > mere > a memory. Just like Forms2.3. Oh, and that "select * from tab;" > that > you're doing every once in awhile to see if it still works, you just > wait, > someday *someday* we're going to take *that* away too. And you're > just > going to have to live with it. HAhahahaha! > > So, what do you think? Will v5 ever really go away? And when will > RBO just > stop working? > > Bambi. > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > -- > Author: Bellow, Bambi > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services > - > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). > Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA Note: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Wang Trading LLC and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www
RE: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
And also SQL*Loader will be rename to ODL (Oracle Data Loader) Stephane -Original Message- Mladen Gogala Sent: 17 octobre, 2003 17:19 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the datatype LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot to tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm missing even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge and buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language that has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 will never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for generating simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: > Friends -- > > I just got back from a week of benchmarking and one of the "issues" > that > came out of it was, due to some rather, um, interesting, coding > techniques, > running schema level statistics both wrecked performance *and* > produced > Oracle Bug 2954921. So we had to remove the statistics before running > additional tests. Of course, RBO is being desupported soon, so we > really > ought to modify things. But, this brings up another issue. See, > Oracle > says, and here I am paraphrasing, of course, that... > > RBO is going to die. We're not supporting it anymore. Nope. Once > you get > off of 9.2, that's it. Finito. Hasta la vista, Ba-bee. Well, no, > it's not > really going away. YET. It will still be behind the scenes for > awhile. But > sooner or later, it's going to die. You've been warned. This isn't > going > to be like Forms2.3. No. We're serious this time. We put in all > these > great features that y'all aren't using because your code is dependent > on RBO > and RBO can't use these features and that sucks because we really > like > these > features. Now, we figure that a slim minority of people... maybe > 20%... are > still using RBO. 20%. Barely noticeable. (dinosaurs, grumble, > grumble) > Well, we're taking it away. We're going to drag you into the new > millenium > and you're going to use CBO. And you're going to like it. We'll > leave RBO > in there for awhile, but one day you'll wake up and it will be gone. > Gone, > I tell you, GONE! Just you wait. 5, 10 years from now, RBO will be > a > mere > a memory. Just like Forms2.3. Oh, and that "select * from tab;" > that > you're doing every once in awhile to see if it still works, you just > wait, > someday *someday* we're going to take *that* away too. And you're > just > going to have to live with it. HAhahahaha! > > So, what do you think? Will v5 ever really go away? And when will > RBO just > stop working? > > Bambi. > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > -- > Author: Bellow, Bambi > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services > - > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). > Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA Note: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Wang Trading LLC and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Mladen Gogala INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services -
Re: CBO, RBO and will v5 ever really go away?
Bambi, Oracle 5.1.22 was an exceptionally stable version of oracle, with very few parameters (names were "TABLES","INDEXES" and alike) and, as such will forever be committed to our memory. Furthermore, RBO is used in the data dictionary, just like the datatype LONG which has also, allegedly, been desupported but someone forgot to tell that to developers. There are things from V5.1.22 that I'm missing even today. There used to be something called "rpf/rpt" which was a very good thing for writing quick command line reports without huge and buggy gooey interface. I started learning the only other language that has formats and page handling and is not COBOL when rpt/rpf was taken away in 7.1 (your guess is correct, it's perl). In short, Oracle 5 will never go away. I here that in version 11, SQL*Plus will be renamed to UFI (= User Friendly Interface) and there will be tools for generating simple forms called IAP, IAG and IAD... On 10/17/2003 04:54:25 PM, "Bellow, Bambi" wrote: Friends -- I just got back from a week of benchmarking and one of the "issues" that came out of it was, due to some rather, um, interesting, coding techniques, running schema level statistics both wrecked performance *and* produced Oracle Bug 2954921. So we had to remove the statistics before running additional tests. Of course, RBO is being desupported soon, so we really ought to modify things. But, this brings up another issue. See, Oracle says, and here I am paraphrasing, of course, that... RBO is going to die. We're not supporting it anymore. Nope. Once you get off of 9.2, that's it. Finito. Hasta la vista, Ba-bee. Well, no, it's not really going away. YET. It will still be behind the scenes for awhile. But sooner or later, it's going to die. You've been warned. This isn't going to be like Forms2.3. No. We're serious this time. We put in all these great features that y'all aren't using because your code is dependent on RBO and RBO can't use these features and that sucks because we really like these features. Now, we figure that a slim minority of people... maybe 20%... are still using RBO. 20%. Barely noticeable. (dinosaurs, grumble, grumble) Well, we're taking it away. We're going to drag you into the new millenium and you're going to use CBO. And you're going to like it. We'll leave RBO in there for awhile, but one day you'll wake up and it will be gone. Gone, I tell you, GONE! Just you wait. 5, 10 years from now, RBO will be a mere a memory. Just like Forms2.3. Oh, and that "select * from tab;" that you're doing every once in awhile to see if it still works, you just wait, someday *someday* we're going to take *that* away too. And you're just going to have to live with it. HAhahahaha! So, what do you think? Will v5 ever really go away? And when will RBO just stop working? Bambi. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Bellow, Bambi INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA Note: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Wang Trading LLC and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Mladen Gogala INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (l
