Re: Is Richard Niemiec Right

"Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message news:91884734.0310021619.31c47b2b_at_posting.google.com...

> >
> > This of course doesn't make sense with 10G. But with any prior release
> > (and they are still the majority of installs out there) it may serve a purpose
> > to write SQl using the RBO "rules". I guess that's the spirit in which
> > Niemic's book was written. Because if it was for any other reason, it is
> > wrong.
>
> Let's jump on Niemec when he's wrong. And say why he is wrong. This
> inuendo stuff is tiresome. The more I delve into the book, the better
> I think it is. He gives references (granted, himself sometimes!).

Without a doubt. I thought my post clearly showed I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think I got one book from his stable. It's not bad, although now well out of date. But it served its purpose when it was published.

No one can expect an old book to have new concepts. Long before such things as the wait-interface was available, all DBAs had to go by was ratios. And very scant info from the tech support people at Oracle. Which in many cases are the very same people now out of Oracle making noises against ratios. (sorry folks, it's the case in a number of instances!).

I most certainly don't engage in innuendo. Even though Niemic's stable never shied away from using that against me. That's their option. What I critique in their books and their approach to business with TUSC/IOUG is openly said. As I hoped was clear from my message.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam