Re: Locally Managed Tablespaces ... again!!!

<ctcgag_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20030120195527.382> Actually, it appears it would be for AGRINDEX and AGRINDEX4, as this whole
> threadlet has been on the topic of write contention, not read contention.
>

Nope. This thread has been about a simple question, which you won't answer. Why should tables and indexes have some kind of special relationship regarding read OR write contention?

Tell me. Explain to me the mechanism. Show me how that which is inherently serial can suddenly engender especial amounts of parallelized contention.

You admitted DBWR doesn't give a damn what sort of buffer it flushes. So how the hell do index buffers and table buffers suddenly start to contend on the write?

I'll shut up if you explain one plausible mechanism to explain what you are pushing as a read/write anomaly: reads don't contend. But writes suddenly do. But no, I expect you're gonna trot out "my dogma" versus "ye olde dogma" nonsense. Like I *care*.

The physics is against you. The logic is against you. The testing is against you. But no, you just keep on spewing out the same old same old like it matters. Because you have a database to manage, and you don't want to admit that maybe, just maybe, you've been doing it wrong all these years. Me- I'm "only" theory. So what do I know?? Nothing really. Other than that you're assumptions are wrong, you can't sustain a theoretical argument without changing course halfway through, and that indexes and tables don't actually contend on reads or writes, inherently.

Come on. Forget the posturing, the
cover-my-ass-cos-I-don't-wanna-look-like-I'm-dumb crap: WHY do indexes and tables contend on the write when they don't contend on the read?

Answer that, and I'll shut up.

HJR
> Xho
>
> --
> -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
Received on Tue Jan 21 2003 - 00:17:44 CST