Notes in-line:
--
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
The educated person is not the person
who can answer the questions, but the
person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr
One-day tutorials:
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html
____Belgium___Nov (EOUG day)
____UK_______December (UKOUG conference)
Three-day seminar:
see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
____USA__October
____UK___November
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f76b06b$0$2471$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> The details of indexing change from version to
> version. Index rebuilds are not necessary nowadays, but a
> few years ago even Oracle's doco claimed they were
> needed. Yet we never heard from them exactly what changed
> to make them not needed, when and why.
>
Years ago, when you were young and naive you
probably believed the documentation - you don't
now, so why assume that your belief was sound then ?
I would guess that there was some benefit in
rebuilds prior to Oracle 6, when indexes had
leading and trailing compression techniques
that were quite convoluted, and nothing like
the v6-onwards index.
Thye change from v5 to v6 was documented,
but that didn't stop the stories.
> If it wasn't for yours, Richard's and Howard's work,
> it would have gone unnoticed by the vast majority of users.
>
> This goes back to something I talked to Ken Jacobs
> last week about: we need a concrete and COMPLETE
> "differences" document for 10G, as well as a "what's
> new" written by someone like Connor. Who can discern
> what is important from what is just marketing fluff.
>
The trouble is that it takes a lot of time to work out what's
there, and what isnt fluff - and your fluff is my crtiical need -
and anyway, 10.1.0.2 will have some useful stuff that won't
be in 10.1.0.1, and so on . . . (that's rhetorical, by the way,
not based on known fact).
> I can assure you if Connor's recent paper on the "hidden"
> diffs had been available years ago when 9i first came out,
> we'd all have a lot more users on this version than we have.
> Oracle made a very poor argument for 9i in their official doco.
> Hence why very few people upgraded. Note: I said upgraded.
> Of course NEW licences are on 9i, they better well be!
>
Oracle has ALWAYS made the mistake of confusing features
and benefits. Until very recently, even the examples that were
supposed to demonstrate the benefits were so trivial and
badly described that you could barely spot the benefit. It's
the result of using your best technical people to do technical
things, and not wasting them on writing.
Received on Sun Sep 28 2003 - 06:48:46 CDT
