| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Index compression vs. table compression
Richard Foote wrote:
> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:ct13a4$pam$1_at_news-02.connect.com.au...
>
>>Richard Foote wrote: >> >>>"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message >>>news:ct0s43$fhh$2_at_news-02.connect.com.au... >>> >>> >>>>Richard Foote wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>There is no hidden agenda, there is no mysterious plot, there is no >>>>>personal vendetta, there is no secret monies being exchanged for >>>>>unscrupulous deeds, there is no mission to select the 10 most beautiful >>>>>male and female DBAs in the world in order to transport them to a hidden >>>>>base in outer space so that a deadly chemical agent can kill off the >>>>>rest of mankind so that the select 10 (via a FTS of course) can come >>>>>back and DBAs rule the world ... >>>> >>>>You reported me to Oracle management once for having passed on >>>>commercially sensitive information to Steve Adams. Without one shred of >>>>actual evidence, of course. And without it being even remotely true. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Hi Howard, >>> >>>Oh dear, it's now bordering on the paranoid delusional !! >>> >>>Of course I didn't report you for any such thing which you can confirm >>>with the HR department or with my supervisor at the time. >> >>Since Surinder told me unequivocally that you did, along with others, I >>shall simply stick with what I know to be the case. >> >> >>>That said, we both know who did report you, who can also confirm that I >>>didn't. >>> >>>Now, back to the *subject* on hand, what's all this about small lookup >>>tables being read by FTSs... >> >>No, that wasn't the subject. The word "lookup" is of your invention. >>
I don't need to discuss it, since I know what the manager to whom you reported told me. That was your problem, incidentally, not mine. And I mention it in this context only because since about October/November last year you have taken evident delight in pouncing on my posts and declaring 'error', when what you are in fact pouning on, for want of a better word, is a simplification to make a (teaching) point.
That is behaviour change on your part, and I am at a loss to explain it, except in the terms I have mentioned. And as Christine Keeler would have said regarding your denial, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"
> I suspect however, this is just a poorly directed and quite extraordinary
> smokescreen to divert attention from a number of technical errors you've
> made in this thread.
There have been no technical errors which Oracle's documentation doesn't also make. The official documentation also talks about moving things to the hot half of the LRU list etc etc. They do so to make a point about the function of CACHE/NOCACHE. It is the point which is valid, and nattering on about touch counts > 2 etc etc etc doesn't help make it any better.
Once someone has grasped what CACHE/NOCACHE is all about, then technical precision can be used to enlighten them further, for sure. But the thread wasn't at that point, in my view, before it got hijacked.
The other technical error you accuse me of having made is the one about 'lookup tables will always be read via a FTS'. And *that* technical error can only be laid at my door if you choose to insert the word table into a sentence, because it was never there in my original. It is an odd thing indeed for an accusation of technical error to have to be made by inserting words into my mouth.
> I understand some people take criticism poorly but your
> reaction has just been ridiculous.
You have jumped on "errors" which are teaching points. And you have put words into sentences which were never there. And you have done so consistently since about October or November of last year.
When you flounced out of the group because it was no longer fun, I at least breathed a sigh of relief that I might now be able to post something in a consequetive sequence of posts perhaps building up to a full explanation without your butting half-way through and yelling 'wrong!' to the world.
Clearly, that is not to be. And it's for that reason I won't bother posting here further. And for similar reasons, I have given up membership of the Oak Table group.
>In the past when I've agreed with
Tom and Jonathan have not been doing this routine of yours for the past X months. You have. There's a qualitative difference, and I can only explain that in the context of past behaviour which I know about.
> *Please*, let's stop this nonsense of secret agendas and just focus on
> *technical* matters.
I was. You, however, haven't been.
Or perhaps "That Howard perhaps says more your experience than you might have intended...." contains some nugget of technical insight I missed instead of it being the cheapshot ad hominem I read it as?
You are the one who has jumped into this thread with the personal put down; and it is you that has posted 'and another technical error of Howard's...' with evident relish.
>Your explanations have so far been as weak as American
Tom Kyte mis-interpreted what I'd written, and I swiftly clarified the matter for him. And I have no idea who Tony Andrews is, but he clearly will not read what I have written without adding bits to it either. But those I count as innocent misreadings of something which was, it is now apparent, ambiguously worded. Your reasons however seem otherwise...
> Let's blow away some of this smoke and see what we may find. Over there
> (cough, splutter), I see a large shadow on the ground. Oh goodness, it's the
> body of a poor horse that appears to have been beaten to death. Through the
> haze (cough, cough), I think I can make out it's name on it's saddle cloth:
> "Lookup Table".
Ah, I see. Very techical.
Goodnight Gracie.
HJR Received on Tue Jan 25 2005 - 14:39:36 CST
 |
 |