Re^4: Perl Typeless Database

All of this is true. I guess when I say reliability, I mean the extent to which a user or developer mistake or bug causes the system to fall over.

Specifically talking about the database design. Say someone made a typo in the column name. The database would happily autovivify a new column for them. Same as in Perl if you make a typo in a hash key. A new entry is created.

For some applications, such as prototypes or small systems, or simply systems that don't matter that much or have short lifetimes - this is an acceptable and reasonable tradeoff.

Andrew Tomazos | andrew@tomazos.com | www.tomazos.com

Comment on Re^4: Perl Typeless Database

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Perl Typeless Database by steves (Curate) on Jul 02, 2005 at 14:20 UTC
I see. Your goal makes sense. From a practical view, as an Oracle user, I find that me automatically doing things DBA's consider their realm (creating tables, assigning primary keys, creating indices) hasn't gone over so well. Some of that is due to bugs in Oracle -- e.g., once I auto-analyzed a table as it was being used and crashed the entire database. I'm not saying this "don't touch" view is necessarily correct, but it does exist in my world.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: Perl Typeless Database
by steves (Curate) on Jul 02, 2005 at 14:20 UTC

I see. Your goal makes sense. From a practical view, as an Oracle user, I find that me automatically doing things DBA's consider their realm (creating tables, assigning primary keys, creating indices) hasn't gone over so well. Some of that is due to bugs in Oracle -- e.g., once I auto-analyzed a table as it was being used and crashed the entire database. I'm not saying this "don't touch" view is necessarily correct, but it does exist in my world.

[reply]