Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views

From: Bob Jones <email_at_me.not>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:30:47 GMT
Message-ID: <bWAJi.51534$Um6.1225@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>

"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:UuedndbS7u6BvGjbnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d_at_bt.com...

> "Bob Jones" <email_at_me.not> wrote in message 
> news:UUZIi.6513$FO2.5217_at_newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...

>>
>> "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:HLadndQOd74rmWnbnZ2dnUVZ8tyqnZ2d_at_bt.com...
>>> "Bob Jones" <email_at_me.not> wrote in message
>>> news:c7iHi.5666$FO2.2917_at_newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, the same thing does look more credible on a nicely formatted
>>>> page, even from someone who said almost nothing on this thread. By
>>>> randomly picking a few sentences from my comments, it does show he has
>>>> other interests in mind.
>>>>
>>>

>


>>> Bob,

>>>

>>> I believe I managed to identify every comment you made that was

>>> supposed to explain why, and how, you would use the buffer
>>> cache hit ratio.
>>

>

>> Without prejudice?
>>

>
> Yes. "without prejudice" was quite easy,

It doesn't appear so.

> I just had to read carefully
>    and try to identify points which seemed to be in favour of using the
>    BCHR. I don't think I ignored anything - but it was a long read with
>    very  little useful content, so I may have missed something by 
> accident.
>
>

Really? That may be why this thread dragged on for so long with little content and lots of repetitions. But I am pretty sure my comments are much more that.

>>> If you can find any other comments in the sequence
>>> of posts that add further weight to your argument then please feel
>>> free to cut and paste them into the comments section of the blog -
>>> or collate them in a short reply to this note.
>>>

>

>>
>> Sorry, I have no interest in generating more traffic for your site.

>
>    I doubt if anything you do, or do not do, will have much impact
>    on the traffic I receive; and you could have chosen to reply in this
>    forum.
>

I agree. If you have anything to say, put it here.

> You have implied that my selection of points was prejudicial and made > with ulterior motives in mind.

My implication was not necessary at all. It was too obvious.

> Your unwillingness to supply even one extract
>    from the thread to support your implication does nothing to enhance 
> your
>    general credibility.
>

What you posted out there have been discussed here one way or another, even multiple times. I have no intention to repeat or improve my credibility here.

>    I have asked other readers of my blog if they would like to attempt the
>    challenge that you have avoided.
>
>    I'm sorry but that might increase the traffic to my web-site.
>
>

By copying some contents from this forum and including multiple links in every post? It will. Received on Sun Sep 23 2007 - 16:30:47 CDT