Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

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

Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views

From: Richard Foote <>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:04:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4KvBi.28325$>

"Bob Jones" <email_at_me.not> wrote in message news:rAqBi.48124$
>> Unfortunately Bob, I have read all the thread and nowhere do you give any
>> indication on why you would consider the BCHR to be a "very meaningful
>> indicator" when it might not not change at all, currently 95% and still
>> 95% while the database grinds to a halt ...
> And nothing else has changed?
> No, you either have not read all the threads or make no effort to
> understand my point.

So how has this brilliant BCHR of yours helped in *anyway* to determine that something is perhaps not right when the BCHR hasn't changed ?

Hummm, not that meaningful in this situation is it Bob ?

In fact, in what situation is BCHR useful. Oh, that's right, not very good at answering questions are you Bob ...

>>>> Your "very meaningful indicator" hasn't budged at all (still sitting at
>>>> 99%) but the application has ground to halt ...
>>>> You remind me of someone who considered the health and well being of
>>>> the Titanic to be based on the ratio of notes being played by the
>>>> string quartet, all things being equal !!
>>> Before trying to read my mind, please read the thread correctly first.
>>> Apparently some people here are debating with their ears blocked.
>> Answer the questions in my other post Bob and lets see who has their ears
>> blocked.
> That would be you. If not, you would not have asked those questions.

Are you referring to those questions you couldn't answer ...

>> I have read all your contributions Bob, I really have and not once have
>> you actually justified why the BCHR is such a meaningful indicator,
>> nowhere have you mentioned what these other indicators are that you need
>> to use in conjunction with the BCHR, nowhere have you mentioned how your
>> actions and checks vary if the BCHR increases, decreases or remains the
>> same, nowhere have you actually described what all these things are that
>> must be equal for a higher BCHR to always be better.
>> Oh you've made a lot of claims, but you haven't actually addressed and
>> justified them.
>> Go on Bob, answer the questions, dare ya !!
> I will wait unitl you get into an objective mindset, or am I being too
> optimistic.

I suspect we're waiting until you actually know how to answer them. Might be a long time ...

>> If you can ...
>> Oh and Bob, humour me if you would. You don't by any chance routinely
>> rebuild all your indexes to make your databases run heaps faster you ?
>> You strike me as the kinda guy who rebuilds indexes that have a height
>> greater than 3 or have more than 20% deleted space.
>> Do you ?
> Wow, we are talking about indexes now. Any other distractions? Maybe we
> can talk about response time again.
> I am sensing more frustration than rationality here.

I've rationally put forward my case, I've even given you the opportunity on a nice silver platter for you to put your case forward by providing a few simple little questions, to help you illustrate your brilliant use of BCHRs.

Unfortunately, you couldn't answer a single question, didn't know how to address any of the issues raised, not a one.

No soup for you Bob.

NEXT!! Cheers

Richard Received on Thu Aug 30 2007 - 04:04:00 CDT

Original text of this message