<fitzjarrell_at_cox.net> wrote in message
news:1188482840.809082.77160_at_r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 29, 9:27 pm, "Bob Jones" <em..._at_me.not> wrote:
>> "Richard Foote" <richard.fo..._at_nospam.bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cXdBi.27614$4A1.19426_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bob Jones" <em..._at_me.not> wrote in message
>> >news:7d_Ai.4071$JD.3351_at_newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> >> "Richard Foote" <richard.fo..._at_nospam.bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:seAAi.26732$4A1.22707_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >>> "Bob Jones" <em..._at_me.not> wrote in message
>> >>>news:mOnAi.236$ZA5.16_at_nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> >>>> "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"?
>>
>> >>> And how precisely do you determine that everything else indeed is
>> >>> equal
>> >>> ? Most databases don't exactly remain equal ...
>>
>> >> No, they do not. That's why you do not look at BCHR alone, as I have
>> >> said
>> >> before.
>>
>> > So what else do you look at in conjunction with the BCHR ?
>>
>> > Interestingly, you never answer any of the questions and you never give
>> > any examples of why you consider the BCHR to be such a fantastic
>> > indicator. And yes, I have read *all* your contributions to this
>> > discussion ...
>>
>> > So how about you at least attempt to justify your claim that the BCHR
>> > is
>> > "a very meaningful indicator". How do you actually use the BCHR in a
>> > meaningful manner ? So you look at the BCHR and ..., and what ?
>>
>> > And when do you look at these other "whatevers" in conjunction with the
>> > BCHR ? When the BCHR increases, what else do you check ? And when the
>> > BCHR
>> > decreases, what else do you check and how do these checks differ from
>> > when
>> > the BCHR increases ? And when the BCHR remains the same, what else do
>> > you
>> > check and how do these checks differ from when the BCHR increases or
>> > decreases ?
>>
>> > Remember, it's your claim that the BCHR is "a very meaningful
>> > indicator",
>> > well show us ?
>>
>> > If you can ....
>>
>> >>> And when precisely do you check if everything else is equal with this
>> >>> "very meaningful indicator" of yours ? When the BCHR increases ? When
>> >>> the BCHR decreases ? When the BCHR remains the same ?
>>
>> >> Try asking yourself the same questions about any other indicators you
>> >> consider meaningful. The question here is not how to determine if
>> >> everything else is equal. It is about whether BCHR means anything if
>> >> everything else is equal.
>>
>> > Please, if everything else is equal, how can the BCHR change ? How can
>> > a
>> > high BCHR always be better than a low BCHR, everything being equal when
>> > having a higher BCHR can only mean things are not equal by definition,
>> > else the BCHR would be the same ? Right ?
>>
>> > Can you please explain how this is possible, having a higher BCHR with
>> > everything being equal, at least attempt some kinda description of what
>> > "everything else" means, at least attempt to justify this somewhat
>> > bizarre
>> > claim ...
>>
>> > If you can ...
>>
>> > Again I go back to my initial set of questions. If your BCHR were to
>> > increase from (say) 95% to (say) 99.9%, if this very meaningful
>> > indicator
>> > were to change in this manner, what else do you check to ensure that
>> > things are really better, that the higher BCHR is actually a good
>> > thing,
>> > that all these mysterious "things" are indeed equal ?
>>
>> > And why wouldn't you need to check these other indicators when the BCHR
>> > decreases ?
>>
>> > And why wouldn't you need to check these things if the BCHR remains the
>> > same ?
>>
>> > If you can't answer these rather basic questions is a vaguely
>> > meaningful
>> > manner, then ummmm, game over I think.
>>
>> > Go on, answer these questions, dare ya !!
>>
>> > If you can ...
>>
>> Wow, that is a lot of questions for a simple concept. Apparently someone
>> has
>> not been paying attention. I am not sure why different people keep asking
>> questions that are either irrelevant or have been answered.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I have been 'paying attention' and you've provided nothing to prove
> your claim. I've read this thread several times and I still fail to
> see what you've provided as evidence to substantiate your assertions.
> Of course I'm not reading this thread with your biased eye and
> jaundiced viewpoint (apparently in your universe the answers to the
> questions posed to you are painfully apparent to the most casual of
> observers -- pray tell which universe this might be so we all may join
> and receive enlightenment).
>
> Prove your claims as Richard, I and others have asked.
>
> If you can.
>
>
> David Fitzjarrell
>
Prove what? 1+1=2?
Received on Thu Aug 30 2007 - 23:08:01 CDT
