Re: Index compression vs. table compression

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:ct6aqa$9mf$1_at_news-02.connect.com.au...
>

<snip>
> 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.

Hi Howard,

You got me curious here so I did a quick check on the archives. As far as I can see since October, there have been only *5* threads in which we have both participated:

"DDL" thread in which I replied to the OP with my interpretation on what was meant, trying to explain to all (including you) what I thought was asked. There was certainly confusion by *all* but certainly no "pounce".

"INITTRANS and MAXTRANS" thread where I simply gave a little demo highlighting the issue and on which *we agree*

"Simple Create Procedure Problem" thread where I simply asked a question on how your procedure could ever be of use. A "pounce" ? Perhaps it could be interpreted that way although it wasn't my intention. Let's call that 1-0.

"type of striping" thread where *you* "pounced" on me and then later apologised when you realised you had misunderstood me. I thought I reacted in a humorous manner and we ended up *agreeing*. Let's call that 1-1.

"create table initial max ?" thread where *you* again pounced on me with comments such as "silly season has descended early on Canberra" in a post I had written to *someone else* (Michel). In the end, I explained among other things why the type of tablespace is important in order to answer the OP's question and highlighted some of *Michel's* errors. Let's call that 1-2

And that's it !! That's the whole history of my horrid campaign against you ... I guess I'm not very good at it since in that time *you* have actually "pounced" on *me* 1-2.

Hummmmm ...

<snip>

> 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.
>

And for the hopefully the last time, *your* original quote:

"how is the optimiser likely to read small, useful, lookup **tables**?.. er, via a FTS, probably, if they are genuinely small."

I think it sums it all up rather nicely ...

Sleep well.

Richard Received on Tue Jan 25 2005 - 18:51:20 CST