Taking the cue from Jay Pipes, as so many other bloggers have done, I present the five things I would most like to see in a future release of MySQL.
Last week, in collaboration with several of my colleagues here at Pythian, I published an open letter to Larry Ellison. The response to this letter has been — well — surprising, both in volume and in character. It is clear that many in the Oracle community seem to share the sentiments that we have expressed. In fact, we know that we are not alone in this endeavour.
The 52nd edition of Log Buffer is up, edited by Dominic Brooks and published on his blog, OraStory. On deck, Daniel Fink.
As you might imagine, the traffic to the open letter from the oracle.com domain has been spiking in the last few days. Two days ago, in fact, Christo received an email from Oracle putting into question the fact that AWR data collection could not be disabled without a license to the diagnostic pack, and promptly forwarded that note to me. So as it turns out, Oracle has been working on a package to disable the AWR data collection without requiring a license for at least two months. But as of yesterday, it had not yet been published.
15 years ago, with the release of Oracle 7.0.12, Oracle gave the world—or at least its customers—something really great: the Oracle Wait Interface (OWI). We believe that the Oracle database software is the best instrumented database software available. The fact that Oracle already leads the industry in this regard probably led to their decision to make this leap forward in instrumentation an extra-cost item. However, in the interest of making Oracle even better, we would like to invite readers to join us in signing the following open letter to Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corporation.
Wilfred van der Deijl (fresh from an award-winning appearance at ODTUG) has published the 51st Log Buffer on OraTransplant.
Before you proceed with reading this post, I strongly encourage you to read Tom Kyte’s trilogy about write consistency, since I’ll do only a brief introduction to the subject. The way Oracle ensures UPDATE write consistency is through a mechanism called restart. Let’s take a look at an example before we proceed with the main topic of this blog post, Will there be any difference if we substitute the following MERGE for the last UPDATE?
A few month ago I posted about my indignation regarding the inability to change my email address on OTN. Now, I’m not only able to change my email address, but also the screen name (I don’t think I do that before either). In the end, it took Oracle just 2 months and 5 days to follow up on my post. Not too bad, considering that OTN forums were full of complaints for years! ;-)
I’m looking forward to the announcement of the next Oracle database version. It’ll be interesting to see how it’s going to be named. It’s been known so far as 11g but I expect an update on 11th of July.
Let’s take the following question, for example. Is there any difference between using: where column between n and m and where column>=n and column<=m? Looks like a simple one, eh? hey are the same from a semantic point of view. But SQL is a declarative language. In other words, you wouldn’t expect same execution plan with two semantically identical statements, would you? There is at least one known (to me) example where both statement produce different execution plans. You never know until you test it. We start by creating a simple list-partitioned table with the local index: