Re: Designing database tables for performance?

From: Cimode <>
Date: 27 Feb 2007 00:19:54 -0800
Message-ID: <>

On 27 fév, 04:23, DA Morgan <> wrote:
> joel garry wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 5:30 am, "Cimode" <> wrote:
> >> On 23 fév, 22:33, "jgar the jorrible" <> wrote:
> >>>> In what RAM would be less physical than HD ? For any reason, an
> >>>> absurdity is an absurdity.
> >>> Not an absurdity, you just aren't paying attention to how the I/O is
> >>> counted.
> >> So you say there are *ways* to count IO's. Fair enough. Question is:
> >> what has the way of counting IO's has any bearing on the media that
> >> supports them and therefore qualifies their nature as physical or
> >> logical? What is the difference: speed?
> >> Physical IO means that IO have some physical inmemory/hd counterpart
> >> while logical IO mean *no media* at all as a prerequisite.
> >>> From Oracle's point of view, if the desired data exists in
> >>> Oracle's buffers, that is a logical I/O.
> >> As I said, I am well aware of ORACLE brainwashing over its troops.
> >> ORACLE succeded to convince the audience of practictionners that RAM
> >> (call it cache if you want) = logical. One of Larry Ellison
> >> *contribution* to the field of database technology. Reading and
> >> educating yourself in RM will help you see the absurdity in that. (See
> >> rule of indepedence netween logical and physical layer)
> >> [Snipped Description of process - thanks for the pedagogic intent
> >> though]
> >>> Now, you are welcome to think it is better to be more simple than that
> >>> and just say RAM I/O is the same as HD, but that sounds patently
> >>> absurd to me. Perhaps you have a better way of distinguishing the
> >>> semantics?
> >> It sounds absurd because Larry Ellison has brainwashed people like you
> >> (no disrespect meant) *not* to think otherwise to boost up his
> >> products sales and bank account. Read books written by knowledgeable
> >> audiences about RM and you will see what I am refering to.(was in your
> >> shoes once long ago;)) A few good books to read that may help...
> >>
> > F'n Pascal? "no disrespect?" HAHAHA
> > When were you in my shoes? Do you realize I was awarded "Go Oracle
> > user of the month" for standing up to him 15 years ago (when he was
> > unfairly maligning some poor guy who's management stuck him with some
> > usual product). Kinda scary that some people still remember that,
> > though.
> > Actually, I agree with a lot of what Date and Pascal say, I just have
> > problems with Pascal's elitism and anyone who says Larry Ellison has
> > brainwashed people like me. I started on relational databases in 1980
> > and didn't run into Oracle until '83. I _did_ purposefully throw my
> > lot in with Oracle around '89 as I saw it gaining the upper hand
> > commercially. How one gets from there to brainwashing is beyond me.
> > And until about 10 years ago I did a lot of work (paid, not
> > theoretical, sorry) on issues having to do with multiple db engines.
> > After that it was a simple fact of life that Oracle was top dog.
> > Perhaps that involved brainwashing decision makers, I wouldn't know.
> > I certainly have had no problem saying bad things about Larry or
> > Oracle when I feel it is relevant, and laughing outright at marketing
> > BS. That's one of the benefits of being an independent.
> > jg
> > --
> > is bogus.
> >
> You've got my vote Joel.
> Sour grapes produces a lot of whine and it doesn't age all that well.
> If someone thinks Oracle has it wrong they are welcome to jump into
> the market and compete. My guess is that the only way they can make
> any money from their ideas is to write them in a book.
You talkj about it as if this was indeed not good enough..Writing crap is easy but writing good books is difficult and noble. Somebody has got to do the thinking before somebody builds the system. Else the product becomes ORACLE (or SQL Server or DB2) Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 09:19:54 CET

Original text of this message