Re: 3GB RAM usage by Oracle

Don Burleson wrote:

>> But that is not what was being criticised about your tuning posts here
>> earlier, which were advocating 'more hardware will make the problem,
>> whatever it is, go away' without taking the time and trouble to actually
>> know what the problem is first. Now here you are saying you knew what
>> your client's problem was...

I am astonished at your honesty, Don. I sort of always knew you had about as much technical talent as some of my students on the DBA Fundamentals I course, but to hear the admission come from your own lips...

Do the clients you charge by the thousand know that what you do could be done by a 2-day DBA with as much insight and success?

> I do consulting for a
> living, and I lose-out when management throws hardware at a
> performance problem! I always make a passionate plea to have the root
> problem corrected to keep by people busy.
>
> Here is what I actually said:
>
> "Also, you ignore the economic reality of database tuning. Time and
> time again, it's too costly (in both time and money) for a shop to
> tune their SQL. . . . Like I said, I have no problem throwing
> hardware at crappy code when the client doesn't want to tune it."

Yup. That certainly sounds like you know what you're doing. Not.

[snip a lot of Nostradamus-like pontificating on our hardware future]

> When SSD gets to be cheaper than disk, the data buffer caches become
> an unnecessary nuisance. It's coming sooner than you think. . . .

Thank you, Nostro.

> Have you noticed the new CPU-based costing for the CBO in 10g?

Have you noticed how ridiculous your posts are getting?

HJR Received on Sun Aug 29 2004 - 14:30:52 CDT