Re: Oracle slowed down

"HansF" <News.Hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message news:pan.2006.04.22.20.55.19.929527_at_telus.net...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:43:05 +0000, Bob Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> "HansF" <News.Hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.04.22.15.14.57.706852_at_telus.net...
>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:23:54 +0000, Bob Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do all these mean BHCR is deprecated?
>>>
>>> No. They simply mean that tuning does not start, or end, with BCHR.
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you for clarifying. That's the whole point of this thread.
>
> Actually, the point of the thread is that the OP has a performance
> problem and is attempting to use BCHR to try to solve it.
>
> Your point seems to be that BCHR is a tool to be used to resolve the
> issue.
>
> The rest of us are trying to tell OP that BCHR really doesn't matter. The
> OP should be concentrating on finding out why the system is slow instead
> of finding out why there is a low BCHR.
>

I thought we have agreed BCHR is not deprecated, therefore it does matter. There is nothing wrong with finding out why BCHR is low.

> If nothing else, we are trying to get the OP to understand that the
> problem may not be the cache.
>

No one is saying it has to be the cache, neither we should say it has to be bad queries.

> Athough several, including yourself, have said that a 38M cache is too
> small. Which is probably true unless the database is small (smaller
> than 30M). Which, as far as I can tell, is an unconfirmed assumption.
>

That's why I asked that question earlier on. Read my posts.

The only thing I disagree with here is that BCHR is deprecated or irrelevant. Received on Sat Apr 22 2006 - 17:56:20 CDT