Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Designing database tables for performance?
Cimode wrote:
> On 27 fév, 04:23, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote: >> joel garry wrote:
>>>> On 23 fév, 22:33, "jgar the jorrible" <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote: >>>>>> In what RAM would be less physical than HD ? For any reason, an >>>>>> absurdity is an absurdity. >>>>> Not an absurdity, you just aren't paying attention to how the I/O is >>>>> counted. >>>> So you say there are *ways* to count IO's. Fair enough. Question is: >>>> what has the way of counting IO's has any bearing on the media that >>>> supports them and therefore qualifies their nature as physical or >>>> logical? What is the difference: speed? >>>> Physical IO means that IO have some physical inmemory/hd counterpart >>>> while logical IO mean *no media* at all as a prerequisite. >>>>> From Oracle's point of view, if the desired data exists in >>>>> Oracle's buffers, that is a logical I/O. >>>> As I said, I am well aware of ORACLE brainwashing over its troops. >>>> ORACLE succeded to convince the audience of practictionners that RAM >>>> (call it cache if you want) = logical. One of Larry Ellison >>>> *contribution* to the field of database technology. Reading and >>>> educating yourself in RM will help you see the absurdity in that. (See >>>> rule of indepedence netween logical and physical layer) >>>> [Snipped Description of process - thanks for the pedagogic intent >>>> though] >>>>> Now, you are welcome to think it is better to be more simple than that >>>>> and just say RAM I/O is the same as HD, but that sounds patently >>>>> absurd to me. Perhaps you have a better way of distinguishing the >>>>> semantics? >>>> It sounds absurd because Larry Ellison has brainwashed people like you >>>> (no disrespect meant) *not* to think otherwise to boost up his >>>> products sales and bank account. Read books written by knowledgeable >>>> audiences about RM and you will see what I am refering to.(was in your >>>> shoes once long ago;)) A few good books to read that may help... >>>> http://www.dbdebunk.com/books.html
>> You've got my vote Joel. >> >> Sour grapes produces a lot of whine and it doesn't age all that well. >> >> If someone thinks Oracle has it wrong they are welcome to jump into >> the market and compete. My guess is that the only way they can make >> any money from their ideas is to write them in a book. > You talkj about it as if this was indeed not good enough..Writing crap > is easy but writing good books is difficult and noble. Somebody has > got to do the thinking before somebody builds the system. Else the > product becomes ORACLE (or SQL Server or DB2)
If this was still the 1970s and 80s I would agree. But the ideas were fleshed out. The ideas were implemented. The market has spoken.
The only thing new coming out of discussions of theory seems to be whining about how things were not implemented in a purist fashion. Conveniently ignoring the fact that every attempt to do so has been a commercial failure.
-- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.orgReceived on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 10:17:06 CST