On Apr 23, 2:57 pm, dbaplusp..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2:31 pm, sybra..._at_hccnet.nl wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 23 Apr 2007 10:06:54 -0700, dbaplusp..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >On Apr 23, 11:38 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> > >> dbaplusp..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
> > >> > Of couuse there are some overheads which you point out, but how much
> > >> > CPU ovethead one is talking vs disk based
> > >> > access. which takes mili seconds . CPU based access takes micro
> > >> > secinds. Do the math for your application.
>
> > >> A lot of people have done the testing. And what you assume is not
> > >> necessarily the case.
>
> > >> Here is one example among many:http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:5...
>
> > >> > Those people who advise you to limit memory to 640K or stay away from
> > >> > large buffer cache are plain wrong. Why there are in memory dataase,
> > >> > why Oracle has developed/acquired TEN TIMES database, Why in TPC
> > >> > benchamrks, they use hundreads of GB"s of buffer cache.
>
> > >> The reason TimesTen is so fast has little to do with what you assume.
> > >> It is not just a question of throwing a lot of RAM at the problem. You
> > >> should study the underlying concepts and architecture before trying to
> > >> draw a line between the Oracle RDBMS and TimesTen. They are totally
> > >> different beasts.
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel A. Morgan
> > >> University of Washington
> > >> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> > >> (replace x with u to respond)
> > >> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
>
> > >I read a presentataion on Times Ten on your web site and it clearly
> > >points out differences in memory access and disk access. I know,
> > >there are many things to Times Ten, but getting away from disk access
> > >is one of its main principle.
>
> > >Throwisng RAM is not always the answer but making good use of RAM
> > >improves performance, that is my point. 64 bit Oracle is a good
> > >thing.
>
> > Quoting from one your previous drivel contributions
>
> > I do not subscrbe to any silver bullet, yet open to taking advnatge
> > of 64 bit Oracle and setting large db_buffer cache.
>
> > So you just want to enlarge the buffer cache, don't you? Is that 'good
> > use'?
> > Wouldn't good use include configuring the keep cache and the recycle
> > cache? Probably you don't even know what it is!
> > So why do you state you don't subscribe to any silver bullet, when
> > that's just a blatant lie?
> > Because you are a 'dbapluplus' waiting to be proving wrong once again?
>
> > Go learn Oracle and stay away here!!!
>
> > --
>
> > Sybrand Bakker
> > Senior Oracle DBA- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I knwo all that. I made use of all three caches in my 8GB of cacahes,
>
> Sybrand is a moron.
> Sybrand is a senior moron.
> Sybrand is a F moron.
> Sybard is a stupid moron.
> He claims to RTFM., but consistently gives incorrect responses.
> To sidetrack his stupidity , he will insult the OP.
> Sybrand needs mental help.
Please say calm! It only fuels his ego! :)
I find calling someone "button pusher" is often the best insult, but
it seems he pushed the right button here....
Received on Mon Apr 23 2007 - 20:10:33 CDT
