Re: Designing database tables for performance?
Date: 26 Feb 2007 17:38:17 -0800
Message-ID: <1172540297.142324.51130_at_p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 24, 5:30 am, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 fév, 22:33, "jgar the jorrible" <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
>
> > > In what RAM would be less physical than HD ? For any reason, an
> > > absurdity is an absurdity.
>
> > Not an absurdity, you just aren't paying attention to how the I/O is
> > counted.
>
> So you say there are *ways* to count IO's. Fair enough. Question is:
> what has the way of counting IO's has any bearing on the media that
> supports them and therefore qualifies their nature as physical or
> logical? What is the difference: speed?
>
> Physical IO means that IO have some physical inmemory/hd counterpart
> while logical IO mean *no media* at all as a prerequisite.
>
> > From Oracle's point of view, if the desired data exists in
> > Oracle's buffers, that is a logical I/O.
>
> As I said, I am well aware of ORACLE brainwashing over its troops.
> ORACLE succeded to convince the audience of practictionners that RAM
> (call it cache if you want) = logical. One of Larry Ellison
> *contribution* to the field of database technology. Reading and
> educating yourself in RM will help you see the absurdity in that. (See
> rule of indepedence netween logical and physical layer)
>
> [Snipped Description of process - thanks for the pedagogic intent
> though]
>
> > Now, you are welcome to think it is better to be more simple than that
> > and just say RAM I/O is the same as HD, but that sounds patently
> > absurd to me. Perhaps you have a better way of distinguishing the
> > semantics?
>
> It sounds absurd because Larry Ellison has brainwashed people like you
> (no disrespect meant) *not* to think otherwise to boost up his
> products sales and bank account. Read books written by knowledgeable
> audiences about RM and you will see what I am refering to.(was in your
> shoes once long ago;)) A few good books to read that may help...
>
> http://www.dbdebunk.com/books.html
F'n Pascal? "no disrespect?" HAHAHA
Actually, I agree with a lot of what Date and Pascal say, I just have
problems with Pascal's elitism and anyone who says Larry Ellison has
brainwashed people like me. I started on relational databases in 1980
and didn't run into Oracle until '83. I _did_ purposefully throw my
lot in with Oracle around '89 as I saw it gaining the upper hand
commercially. How one gets from there to brainwashing is beyond me.
And until about 10 years ago I did a lot of work (paid, not
theoretical, sorry) on issues having to do with multiple db engines.
After that it was a simple fact of life that Oracle was top dog.
Perhaps that involved brainwashing decision makers, I wouldn't know.
I certainly have had no problem saying bad things about Larry or
Oracle when I feel it is relevant, and laughing outright at marketing
BS. That's one of the benefits of being an independent.
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.rdb/browse_thread/thread/17acae645aef5937/87c82af24b29ebe2?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#87c82af24b29ebe2Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 02:38:17 CET