Re: What does maxquerylen in v$undostat really mean?

From: HansF <news.hans_at_telus.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 05:47:55 GMT
Message-ID: <fYQud.59684$6f6.9668@edtnps89>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> HansF wrote:
>

>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> he is using 9i not 10g, why look up the wrong product version?
>>
>>
>>
>> Standard investigation technique?

>
>
> Generally, a dangerous one. Just because it's X in 10g, doesn't mean it
> was X in 9i. I was even a bit dubious about claiming microsecond
> accuracy for the column just because a column of the same name appears
> in similar sorts of views in the same version at that degree of
> accuracy. If the documentation doesn't tell you precisely what the
> answer is, then all else is inference. And that's sometimes a risky
> business to be in.

Based on my experience, I find Oracle tends to retain definitions for a term - if they want to change the definition, they tend to change the name.

If I find something in a specific version, and I can't see a reference in the documentation, I'll use other tactics to build a temporary image as a basis for investigation - and then verify using other testing techniques (including asking here and looking in metalink). I see nothing dangerous in that.

>> One public place to look for information known to be missing, or 
>> incorrect is in the next version of the docco.

>
>
> I really don't know whether I'd go that far. Certainly, it would provide
> a probablistic answer -and maybe, the probability might be quite high.
> But it is never simply 'the answer' -which requires Oracle Corp. gets
> its act together and fixes its documentation when the error is pointed out.
>

I did not state that this would yield *the* answer. I stated this was an investigative technique.

>> After all, Howard had already stated it's missing in the 9i docco ... 
>> and we already know that Oracle will not generally release updates 
>> (ie. patches) to the software on OTN, instead waiting on the next 
>> public release.  Can't see why we'd expect anything different from the 
>> docco which, like software, is subject to the possibility of bugs.

>
>
> It seems to me that the software issue is different from the
> documentation one, as evidenced by the fact that OTN itself talks about
> 'trial licenses' and 'evaluation purposes' and so on for the free
> software downloads, but makes no such qualification regarding the
> contents of tahiti.oracle.com.
>

Quoting from
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96521/title.htm

"The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. If you find any problems in the documentation, please report them to us in writing. Oracle Corporation does not warrant that this document is error-free."

Is that not sufficient qualification?

LWIY/Hans Received on Sat Dec 11 2004 - 23:47:55 CST