Re: Logical DBA needed

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Peter Tashkoff wrote: > Is it the same as a Data Architect? we have one of those. Yup that the guy. Concept comes from the separation between logical database design and physical database design that became SO MUCH less important when relational databases made it possible to implement a logical database design almost unchanged in the physical database. > It was a very useful facility when we did the big conversion from Cobol > C-isam files to informix. Someone else did all the hard work. Still > useful now as it gives me someone to pick on and terrify. It was a > manager accustomed to Oracle that put the position in place here now you > mention it. Thought I was speaking through my hat didn't you! > I have a theory, Oracle is so time-consuming to manage that the poor old > physical DBA has got no time to be logical. So they have to hire someone > else. That might very well be the case. > I would be the last one to suggest that close proximity to Oracle might > have destroyed the poor beggars *ability* to be logical. rgds Mmmm me neither, I would not suggest such a thing. Let everyone draw the conclusion on their own. > >>> "Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.com> 24/03/98 03:42:12 >>> > Na. That's a mainframey/Oracle-y concept that the physical DBA is in > charge of the engine and disks and configuration and tuning while the > logical DBA is in change of database/table design, index specification, > and query optimization. Mainframey shops seem to think that DBAs are > either too dumb or too busy to do both jobs well. I've never been sure > which. I met an Oracle Physical DBA and Logical DBA from some bank > several years ago at a Sybase training class and they explained it to > me. The Informix and Sybase DBAs at the class had no clue but the > other Oracle people all nodded their heads in understanding. > > Art S. Kagel > > Art S. Kagel, kagel@bloomberg.com