Re: When should one rebuild an index?

From: Bob Jones <email_at_me.not>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:48:49 -0600
Message-ID: <BxT6l.11867$>

"Shakespeare" <> wrote in message news:495b47ec$0$195$

> Bob Jones schreef:
>> "DA Morgan" <> wrote in message 

>>> Bob Jones wrote:
>>>> "DA Morgan" <> wrote in message 
>>>>> Bob Jones wrote:
>>>>>> I am not surprised you reached this conclusion based on only the 
>>>>>> example above.
>>>>> Rerun my demo and include any and all columns you wish. Then, using
>>>>> those columns and the data they contain, make your case as to how it
>>>>> constitutes sufficient information to determine an index should be
>>>>> rebuilt.
>>>> Sufficient information? Are we changing the topic again?

>>> You may be ... I haven't wavered an angstrom.
>> Really? From irrelevance to sufficient information seems to be quite a 
>> shift to me.
>>>> What a simplistic approach to tuning. If I can make a conclusion that 
>>>> INDEX_STATS is useless just base on a Mickey Mouse example without any 
>>>> other data, life would be easy. Anyone has a crystal ball to lend?

>>> Perhaps you should reread this thread from the beginning.

>>> To be honest, and I should be, I intentionally let this thread mislead
>>> the conversation just to see if anyone had actually used ANALYZE INDEX
>>> to make these decisions.

>>> Given that I introduced a flagrant and obvious error the result to that
>>> question is clear.

>>> The functionality that might be used is ANALYZE INDEX <index_name>
>>> says what needs to be said.

>>> But, having run a full battery of tests using COMPUTE STATISTICS I will
>>> state, here and for the record, that it too provides a metrics that are
>>> not a reliable source of information as to whether an index would
>>> benefit from a rebuild.
>> Neither of us need to reread the thread. I think it is very clear to 
>> everyone now.
> Yes, very clear to everyone, so no need to go on with this 
> discussion......

Yup. Received on Wed Dec 31 2008 - 17:48:49 CST

Original text of this message