Re: Competition for OraPerf

From: Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.nospam.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:07:57 GMT
Message-ID: <xAF3h.60003$rP1.19383@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1162804151.906075.286110_at_m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Richard Foote wrote:
>> But it's quite another thing to simply throw hardware at a problem, it
>> invariable doesn't work unless the root issue is addressed.
>
> Unfortunately it's worse than this, it isn't that it invariably doesn't
> work - if that were the case the charlatans would have been exposed by
> now, and by the people who matter most those who sign the cheques - no
> the problem is that it variably works :) So if you get your problem
> resolved by accident then the investment in hardware was good, and if
> you don't get your problem resolved also by accident then you have to
> find someone to fire and talk to the charlatans again :(
>

Hi Niall

I guess it kinda depends on one's definition of "works". If there's some improvement, if things run a little faster, a little better, for a little while but no where near the potential of the application and no where near the capability of the hardware infrastructure and not within the expectations of the users, then I'm not sure that it's really "worked".

Poor logical design, poor application design, poor SQL, poor database design, poor definition of user requirements, etc, etc. are generally not suddenly made hunky dory by throwing hardware at these problems. SSD would likely have negligible impact in addressing these issues as it would addressing those issues that don't actually exist.

However, if one could just get Tom Kyte for a day ...

Cheers ;)

Richard Received on Mon Nov 06 2006 - 06:07:57 CST