Re: Oracle slowed down

"ianal Vista" <ianal_vista_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns97ADDF572C421ianalvistahotmailcom_at_70.169.32.36...
> "Bob Jones" <email_at_me.not> wrote in
> news:MDC2g.4833$Lm5.3542_at_newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
>
>>
>> "ianal Vista" <ianal_vista_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns97ADCC0C1C044ianalvistahotmailcom_at_70.169.32.36...
>>> "Bob Jones" <email_at_me.not> wrote in news:xJB2g.68772$H71.2665
>>> @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "HansF" <News.Hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2006.04.22.23.38.08.809156_at_telus.net...
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:25:28 +0000, Bob Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it does not. BCHR is neither deprecated nor irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you accept that BCHR can occasionally be an indication of
>>>>> application and code issues rather than buffer size issues?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do you quantify differentiations between the two situations?
>>
>> By looking at both and tune them separately.
>>
>>
> Based upon which quantifiable metrics?
>

For application tuning or for buffer cache tuning? It is very important to make the distinction between the two, that's where all the confusions are.

> You keep speaking in vague generalities.
> How do you expect anyone to substaniate your claims without reproducible
> metrics that you have consistentantly failed to provide?
> Facts are only facts if other can obtain the same results you claim to
> exist.

Why would I need a metric to show BCHR is not irrelevant to performance? If you are looking for a performance metric that cannot be manipulated, I have none. Received on Sun Apr 23 2006 - 09:04:12 CDT