Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views

From: Bob Jones <email_at_me.not>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:01:13 -0500
Message-ID: <JxnFi.2227$Sd4.1497@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>

<fitzjarrell_at_cox.net> wrote in message
news:1189288090.992113.235620_at_o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 8, 4:18 pm, "Bob Jones" <em..._at_me.not> wrote:

>> "DA Morgan" <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189210426.519912_at_bubbleator.drizzle.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bob Jones wrote:
>>
>> >>> To quote the Oracle docs:
>> >>> "A low cache hit ratio does not imply that increasing the size of the
>> >>> cache would be beneficial for performance. A good cache hit ratio
>> >>> could
>> >>> wrongly indicate that the cache is adequately sized for the
>> >>> workload."
>>
>> >> Finally, something useful, but quoted from the doc. Notice the words
>> >> like
>> >> "could" or "would"?
>> >> The second sentence is a little vague. What does "good" mean? Is my
>> >> cache
>> >> still too small, if BCHR is 99%?
>>
>> > You have been challenged repeatedly to put up a test case that supports
>> > your position. Either you don't have SQL*Plus or don't know how to use
>> > it? I wonder which?
>>
>> Now you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>

>
> Then put the question to rest and PROVE your contentions.  Oh, that's
> right, you can't formulate a concrete example where the BCHR is a
> useful, reliable metric of database and buffer cache health and
> performance.
>

reliable metric for performance? read the god damn thread again before you respond. can you still not read?

>> > You are in no position to criticize anyone or anything. Especially
>> > Oracle docs for vagueness. So far the only thing you've done with
>> > clarity is define your lack of expertise on the subject.
>>
>> If the word "good" is clear to you, you should not even attempt to judge
>> anything.

>
> The same can be said of you, 'Bob'.  The difference is it actually
> applies to you.
>

Why can't you just shut the hell up instead of talking out of your butt.

>>
>> >>> BHCR is as worthless as your unwillingness to acknowledge you are
>> >>> wrong.
>>
>> >> I take it our buddy Dan here doesn't tune his buffer cache.
>>
>> > No. You should take it that he doesn't use worthless metrics to do so.
>>
>> Of course, some people think Buffer Cache Hit Ratio has nothing to do
>> with
>> Buffer Cache.

>
> Now we get to the heart of your misunderstanding.  No one has said the
> BCHR has nothing to do with the Buffer Cache.  The issue is the
> reliability of using such a ratio as an indicator of database and
> buffer cache health and performance.  There is none.
>

You apparently don't even read the previous post, let alone the thread. You will never get to the point, so stop talking.

>>
>> >>> But given that your name is in valid, and your email is not valid,
>> >>> why
>> >>> would anyone expect your opinion to be valid? Come on out of the
>> >>> closet.
>>
>> >> It appears valid names are more important to you than valid arguments.
>>
>> > Wrong again: You have neither.
>>
>> Again, you should not even pretend to be a judge.

>
> He's not pretending.  You, however ...
>

You really do like to talk out of your butt, don't you?

>>
>> > I wonder ... why would someone at San Diego State be so afraid to
>> > acknowledge who they are? Perhaps some more research will answer
>> > that question.
>>
>> Did someone just overdosed this guy? He is really lost in the dark now.-
>> Hide quoted text -

>
> If anyone is lost in the dark it's you, 'Bob', and you continue to
> prove that fact with posts such as this gem.
>

If you don't know what your are saying, the best thing to do is, shut the hell up! Received on Mon Sep 10 2007 - 22:01:13 CDT