Re: Index vs. table scans in statspack reports

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:06:59 +1100
Message-ID: <3fcaf6a9$0$13968$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:3fcaf581$0$20185$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bqep4m$29e$1$8302bc10_at_news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Don't worry - that paragraph is wrong. The number
> > of latches was set to a the next prime anyway - it was
> > only the parameter that was set to double the number of
> > buffers, which is why the author got confused.
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan Lewis
> > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
>
> Given the author, why am I not surprised?
> Regards
> HJR
Actually, on calm reflection, that was a cheap-shot, and I shouldn't have made it, so my apologies to the author in question. The real issue is why such an error is allowed to reside un-corrected on the OTN website in the first place. It's Oracle that needs shooting in this case, not Rich.

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Dec 01 2003 - 02:06:59 CST