Re: Skip_unusable_indexes in 10g

My post was more alerting on a new default behaviour than worrying about.
I agree that the term "better default value" is debatable. As always, it depends...

Regards

Gilles

Selon Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com>:

 I agree with the enhancement request approach if you want to change this. I  don't myself see the justification for FALSE being a better default than  true. I've never really seen the old behaviour as being very logical. Oracle  knows that it can't use an index - but tries to use it anyway and errors.  I can see that not using an index where you might expect Oracle to use one  is something that people complain about in general, and I suppose there is  an argument that my statement failing entirely is better than it  taking longer than expected, but I don't really see either of those as  justification for trying to do something that can't be done.

 On 7/17/06, gparc_at_free.fr <gparc_at_free.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Hi listers,
>
> FYI, skip_unusable_indexes is now a pfile/spfile parameter in 10g
> (not only alter session based as in 8i/9i) and defaults to ... TRUE.
>
> I would prefer FALSE as a better default value.
>
> HTH
>
> Regards
>
> Gilles
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

 --
 Niall Litchfield
 Oracle DBA
 http://www.orawin.info

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l