Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message news:1189210426.519912_at_bubbleator.drizzle.com...
> Bob Jones wrote:
>
>>> To quote the Oracle docs:
>>> "A low cache hit ratio does not imply that increasing the size of the
>>> cache would be beneficial for performance. A good cache hit ratio could
>>> wrongly indicate that the cache is adequately sized for the workload."
>>>
>>
>> Finally, something useful, but quoted from the doc. Notice the words like
>> "could" or "would"?
>> The second sentence is a little vague. What does "good" mean? Is my cache
>> still too small, if BCHR is 99%?
>
> You have been challenged repeatedly to put up a test case that supports
> your position. Either you don't have SQL*Plus or don't know how to use
> it? I wonder which?
>

Now you just don't know what you are talking about.

> You are in no position to criticize anyone or anything. Especially
> Oracle docs for vagueness. So far the only thing you've done with
> clarity is define your lack of expertise on the subject.
>

If the word "good" is clear to you, you should not even attempt to judge anything.

>>> BHCR is as worthless as your unwillingness to acknowledge you are wrong.
>>
>> I take it our buddy Dan here doesn't tune his buffer cache.
>
> No. You should take it that he doesn't use worthless metrics to do so.
>

Of course, some people think Buffer Cache Hit Ratio has nothing to do with Buffer Cache.

>>> But given that your name is in valid, and your email is not valid, why
>>> would anyone expect your opinion to be valid? Come on out of the closet.
>>
>> It appears valid names are more important to you than valid arguments.
>
> Wrong again: You have neither.
>

Again, you should not even pretend to be a judge.

> I wonder ... why would someone at San Diego State be so afraid to
> acknowledge who they are? Perhaps some more research will answer
> that question.

Did someone just overdosed this guy? He is really lost in the dark now. Received on Sat Sep 08 2007 - 16:18:57 CDT