Re: *Measuring sql performance (elapsed time and scalability) by number of logical reads

>I think you have been a bit short in the problem description.
>
> You just meant that all the requested data is already in buffer and no
> physical read is needed.
> Thanks but we have no information on the nature of the sql, the amount of
> data, the expected goal.
> Bad or good SQL is a ratio of these. What if I read one million blocks
> from my multi gig db block buffer
> to return a tiny rowset for the worse ever seen SQL, it will satisfy your
> prerequisite and still be very bad.

Excuse me for not being clear, I meant, theoretically speaking:

SQL 1 reads n1 blocks from buffer (no physical read) to complete, elapsed time t1
SQL 2 reads n2 (where n2 > n1) blocks from buffer (no physical read) to complete, elapsed time t2

t1 is greater than t2

Always theoretically/hypothetical speaking: could anyone comment the possibile reasons behind such behaviour.

Regards,
Dimitre

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l