Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views

"Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_nospam.bigpond.com> wrote in message news:4KvBi.28325$4A1.7908_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Bob Jones" <email_at_me.not> wrote in message
> news:rAqBi.48124$Um6.13270_at_newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>

Why should BHCR determine if something else is not right?

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

To be used for the wrong purposes, of course.

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

In all situations.

>>>>> 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 am referring to the questions that are either irrelevant or already answered.

>>
>>> 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 ...
>

Questions or distractions?

>>
>>> 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.
>

All you have to do is to look beyond your nose.

> Unfortunately, you couldn't answer a single question,

That's because you could not read a single answer.

> didn't know how to address any of the issues raised, not a one.
>

What issues? I thought BCHR is not an issue.

> No soup for you Bob.
>
> NEXT!!
Soup of nonsense? You can have it all. Received on Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:10:13 CDT