Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views

Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views

From: Bob Jones <email_at_me.not>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:35:11 GMT
Message-ID: <jy0Bi.12360$3x.2601@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>

<hjr.pythian_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188277461.195707.270250_at_q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 28, 12:02 am, "fitzjarr..._at_cox.net" <fitzjarr..._at_cox.net>
> wrote:

>> On Aug 26, 6:13 pm, "Bob Jones" <em..._at_me.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Richard Foote" <richard.fo..._at_nospam.bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:2_Wyi.24466$4A1.1328_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> > > "Bob Jones" <em..._at_me.not> wrote in message
>> > >news:kOtyi.50198$YL5.8637_at_newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> > >> High BCHR is always better than low - provided everything else being
>> > >> equal. If BCHR is useless for the stated reasons, no other indicator
>> > >> would be useful.
>>
>> > > This I'm afraid is where you're fundamentally incorrect.
>>
>> > > A high BCHR can mean your database is on life support, struggling to
>> > > cope
>> > > with exessive LIOs due to inefficient SQL with users staring at an
>> > > hourglass rather than returned data.
>>
>> > > A BCHR that has increased can mean your database has suddenly hit
>> > > significant performance issues. Or it can mean things have improved.
>> > > Or it
>> > > can mean response times remain unaffected.
>>
>> > > A BCHR that has reduced can mean your database has suddenly hit
>> > > significant performance issues. Or it can mean things have improved
>> > > (yes,
>> > > improved because that crippling transaction that was previously
>> > > performing
>> > > poorly due to massively exessive LIOs has been fixed, reducing the
>> > > overall
>> > > BCHR) . Or it can mean response times remain unaffected.
>>
>> > > Not much of an indicator is it ?
>>
>> > > But saying that a BCHR is *always* better than a low is just plain
>> > > wrong
>> > > wrong wrong ...
>>
>> > Didn't I repeatedly say "provided everything else being equal"?
>>
>> > > Do yourself a favour and read this
>> > >www.hotsos.com/e-library/abstract.php?id=6?
>>
>> > Do yourself a favor and read my comments correctly.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> We have 'read your comments correctly' and still we arrive at the same
>> conclusion with respect to your 'reasoning' and 'logic'. Your
>> criteria that 'everything else being equal' means what, exactly? What
>> is 'everything else', and how do you define 'equal'? You're spouting
>> verbiage which means little, and that does nothing to fuel your
>> argument. Howard and Richard have provided much in the way of
>> information against your contentions, and have proven their points
>> unequivocably. You, on the other hand, have proven nothing except
>> that you apparently love to see your responses in print, whether or
>> not they are sensible.
>>
>> You need to re-read Howard's and Richard's responses again. And
>> again. And yet again. Possibly you'll reach an understanding that
>> your original points of contention are ill-conceived and you'll have
>> learned something.
>>
>> David Fitzjarrell
>
> Nah, he won't.
>
> If he was interested in learning something, he'd have taken something
> on board by now. At the very least, he would be *arguing* the point
> with facts, logic, reason, instead of merely asserting things
> oblivious to, or in blunt and un-addressed conflict with, the points
> made by others. When something is so apparently a matter of blind
> faith, there's no learning going on, and there's none going to go on.
>

This is a technical not a religious forum. I think that's where the problem is.

> The thread is useful, nonetheless, for anyone that might come after. A
> high BCHR can mean bad news; a low one good news. Contention will
> "improve" the BCHR; improving your SQL so it does less work will
> "worsen" it; 'everything else being equal' is a phrase devoid of any
> meaning in this context... these are good things for others to absorb,
> I think.
>

All of the sudden, we are debating "everything else being equal" now?

> But "Mr Jones" is a lost cause, a closed mind and someone best left to
> indulge in his own misconceptions as he pleases.
>

Your logic never seize to amaze me. Just the opposite of mine. Received on Tue Aug 28 2007 - 16:35:11 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US