- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
The Generic API
Collapse
X
-
-
Actually, he was. Were you there?Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostWas he from infosys?Comment
-
******* MAKE ME STOP!!!Originally posted by DimPrawn View PostWe don't pick you up on your Russian typo's so lay off our English ones.

Comment
-
If it was in Wognum, NL, yes. What a f**king pile of tulipe.Originally posted by DimPrawn View PostActually, he was. Were you there?
Metadata and operational data all crammed in the same tables, nobody that knew the data model (basically there wasn't one), and some twunt who said 'we don't use referential integrity in oracle because it makes the performance worse'. FFS, the whole point of a RDBMS is referential integrity, but would Bob call Oracle and check his assertions with them? Of course not.
I didn't even get paid for half that contract because clientco AND agent went bust. The only good thing is that Bob didn't get paid either.Last edited by Mich the Tester; 11 March 2010, 10:48.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Intelligent Finance used that when I was there. They ended up putting 15 millions lines of code round it.Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostComment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Yet another Oracle Consulting project of legends - kerching!Originally posted by minestrone View PostIntelligent Finance used that when I was there. They ended up putting 15 millions lines of code round it.Comment
-
Yeah, kind of, except it wasn't "sparse" data.Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
To be fair to said database vendor they advised in the manuals that each item (an in-flight proccess in a workflow system) have a small number of attributes corresponding to process state and keys in a properly designed relational schema.
Unfortunately the people who implemented the system at clientco didn't read the manual and every data item ended up as an atrribute of the associated process.
You can guess how the performance scaled with a few million processes and subprocesses (which would duplicate the data items they required) each having several hundred associated pieces of data.While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Why contractors keep putting off their pension (and why I'm one of them) Today 02:43
- HMRC loan charge settlement offer: 3 things to check before you sign Yesterday 07:41
- HMRC standstill agreements extended to 72 months: why the term's doubled, and what to check before signing Jul 31 05:53
- Who owns the loans? Inside the mystery of the loan charge recall scandal Jul 30 06:20
- Umbrella company winding-up petitions in 2026: the practical guide for contractors Jul 29 05:29
- Payments on Account deadline: what contractors must do before July 31st — maybe for the final few times Jul 28 08:01
- Andy Burnham's first 100 days: five things contractors need from the new PM Jul 27 00:53
- Starmer vs Burnham on housing: What their rival plans mean for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- Burnham's housing vision vs. Starmer's home-buying reforms: what it means for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- In Khalil v Innovate Transport, a limited company contractor wasn’t a worker and was on £2.30 — not £230 Jul 21 07:58


Comment