Re: Quality of Oracle MetaLink Notes
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:28:22 +0000
That's nothing ! We have found a bug in 11g where you cant do a delete from a partitioned table. Initial response from Tech Support - You should use truncate its quicker!
Anyway we laughed, ... Most of the time excellent service and docs from Meta link though.
On 25/03/2008, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> That is an inexcusably bad note. You are correct, it is imprecise and
> arrogant, basically it is useless. Have you brought it to the attention of
> a manager?
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Hemant K Chitale <hkchital_at_singnet.com.sg>
> > In the past 1 (or 2?) years, the quality of notes on MetaLink has
> > significantly deteriorated.
> > Some are outright misleading (and potentially dangerous to novice DBAs).
> > However, in recent months, I have noticed notes that are also
> > arrogant or disrespectful
> > to the customer.
> > One example, one which I did send feedback to Oracle Support is Note
> > 558846.1.
> > This is the feedback that I have sent :
> > I find the language used in Note 558846.1 :
> > 1. Unclear
> > 2. Arrogant or dismissive
> > The Symptoms section states
> > "Running a SQL script that returns a great amount of data on Windows"
> > while the Cause section, referring to Bug6867504 states
> > "On Windows if you issue highly recursive or very large SQL
> > statements you will blow the RDBMS stack"
> > Is the Bug logged against "a great amount of data"
> > OR is it logged against "highly recursive SQL"
> > OR is it logged against "very large SQL statement"
> > What is "a great amount of data" ? 5MB ? 500MB ? xx number of records
> > ? Some figure with respect to a fixed Buffer Size ?
> > What is "highly recursive SQL" ? One that makes 10 recursive calls ?
> > One that makes 100 recursive calls ?
> > What is "very large SQL statement" ? One that has a text length of
> > 5000 characters ? A length of 50000 characters ? A length of 5Mbytes ?
> > Is the langauge "blow the RDBMS stack" one that is used by a
> > Technical Support person talking to a DBA/Developer ?
> > What does it mean by "blow .. the stack" ? Should it be "exceed the
> > hardcoded stack size of 1MB " ?
> > What is related to the stack size ? "a great amount of data" OR
> > "highly recursive SQL" OR "very large SQL statement" ?
> > WHERE is the problem ?
> > Is the solution section
> > "Note that any SQL statement that has a lot of repeated values is a
> > poor SQL and will probably cause such problems so it's best never to
> > use such bad SQL and try to tune your queries.
> > If you have a statement that will not work within the 5 MB stack that
> > you have adjusted, you will never know what the correct results are
> > anyway."
> > a REAL WORLD Solution recommendation ? (and, by the way what is "a
> > lot of repeated values" ? how many is "a lot" ?)
> > How does your analyst define "poor SQL" and "bad SQL" in the context
> > of this particular Note and Bug ?
> > If I have an SQL statement that contains a very long INLIST such that
> > it exceeds a certain size (what size ?) is it "poor SQL" or "bad SQL" ?
> > And what does the analyst mean by "you will never know what the
> > correct results are anyway" ? Is THAT the sort of response
> > I expect from an RDBMS vendor ?
> > Hemant K Chitale
> > http://hemantoracledba.blogspot.com
> > --
> > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
> Andrew W. Kerber
> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
-- Howard A. Latham -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Mar 25 2008 - 10:28:22 CDT