Me too, me too !.
"Roger S Gay" <roger.gay_at_shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:47gnc.395459$Pk3.216572_at_pd7tw1no...
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:409d7a18$0$442$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >>Mike Ault wrote:
>
> > Well, it appears we are never going to get an explanation of what a
> > dirty base table block is (I've only asked three times, and Daniel's
> > asked too).
> >
> > But whatever this mysterious beastie happens to be, what possible
> > difference can it make to such a ratio to rebuild an index??
> >
> Please, please Mike, add me to the list of requestors for this
explanation.
> Hopefully a clear definition of "dirty base table block" will add more
light
> than heat to this discussion.
> >
> > > By definition the order of rows in a relational table is random.
> >
> > Also absolutely true.
> >
> Howard, are you sure of this? Relational theorists please correct me if I
am
> wrong, but I thought the best we could say about the order of rows is that
> it is indeterminate, which means we can't even make statistical arguments
> based on assumed randomness.
> >
> > HJR
>
> My only experience with this was with a third party vendor who slipped a
> weekly "rebuild every index in the system" job into a production system I
> was babysitting without saying a word to anyone (Grrrr!) So I can add a
> note here that index rebuilds of any real size are expensive in both CPU
and
> log archive space as well as being almost always ineffective and
pointless.
>
>
> Thank you folks for an informative and so far entertaining thread. I, for
> one, promise faithfully never ever to rebuild an index (not that I ever
> would or did, mark you) without revisiting this thread and rereading every
> post in it.
>
> Roger S Gay
>
>
>
Received on Sat May 08 2004 - 21:28:40 CDT
