Re: OT Discussion- Priority of Performance Tuning...

From: Wolfgang Breitling <breitliw_at_centrexcc.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:48:55 -0600
Message-Id: <8846EC07-26FA-4370-B099-6CA556903833_at_centrexcc.com>



If you read the blog it was about side effects of gathering partition statistics with no_invalidate=>false on processes which access other partitions and my comment was to fix the code so that the optimizer can do partition pruning at parse time. But that is not going to happen because "business views it as if its not broke, why fix it? ". followed by "priorities for the business may not be the same as a priority for the DBA's". Hence my comment "if it is not important for the business why is it for the DBA". Although I have to admit I have at times stepped in and fixed performance rather than wait for a formal go-ahead because I couldn't watch the database suffer. But those were simple fixes that did not require other resources. Regards
Wolfgang Breitling
Centrex Consulting Corporation
http://www.centrexcc.com

On 2011-10-26, at 4:10 PM, Herring Dave - dherri wrote:

> I think this is twisted around a bit. The DBA's priority should be meeting the Business priority. That doesn't mean the only priorities of a DBA should be the Business priorities, as we have many more. I think that was the original intent and from followup emails it seems that way, but just to be clear, if the Business has as priority #1 "process x" finishing in a certain time, then that's your first priority. You have plenty of other work and can make cases to the Business that these other things are important and why, but those shouldn't be worked on ahead of priority #1 issues.
>
> DAVID HERRING
> DBA
> Acxiom Corporation
> EML dave.herring_at_acxiom.com
> TEL 630.944.4762
> MBL 630.430.5988
> 1501 Opus Pl, Downers Grove, IL 60515, USA
> WWW.ACXIOM.COM
>
> The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Breitling
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:20 PM
> To: oracle-l List
> Subject: Re: OT Discussion- Priority of Performance Tuning...
>
> I think this thread started because I took exception to the comment "priorities for the business may not be the same as a priority for the DBA's". IMO they should be the same, i.e. the DBA should not make something a priority if it is not a priority for the business, has their backing. The only exception to that rule is when it comes to backups. That must be a priority for the DBA even if the business does not understand the priority of it - although they need to be reminded of it at every opportunity. With backups the priority would become obvious to the business only when it is too late.
> I'm curious about the opinions on that. Not the last bit about backups. I hope we do not have any disagreement there.
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Wed Oct 26 2011 - 22:48:55 CDT

Original text of this message