Re: optimal size for rollback

> The difference between us, Karen, is that when I post I'm in control enough
> to make sure that what I post is comprehensible. And you do not.

Try to not get personal and discuss a subject, not you or me.

>
>
> For example, you say "It is obvious that it will have some effect when it is
> present and transactions will be faster when it is absent". (I presume,
> incidentally, that we are talking about the existence of the "optimal"
> clause -only it's not entirely clear from your post what "it" actually is).
>
> So you appear to concede that "it will have some effect".
>
> Only in the next breath we have "I question the existence of the performance
> hit".
>
> Well, you can't have it both ways. Either there's an effect, or there isn't.
> If there is, there's a performance hit. If there isn't an effect, then
> there's no performance hit, and (by logical extrapolation) Oracle's just
> invented a way of doing data dictionary lookups and extent allocations and
> deallocations for free.
>
> Or are you saying that whilst the "effect" is there, it isn't serious enough
> to warrant being called a "performance hit"?? In which case, you're on your
> own debating such semantics.
>
> To perform a shrink to optimal, even in LMT, requires visits to the data
> dictionary, and those don't come for free.
>
> HJR
>
> >

I suggested that you come up with some technical explanation or numbers proving the point. For me, to conclude that something is true, the following things
DON'T matter:

• who says it;
• how much he/she talks about it;
• how loud he/she talks about it;
• what he/she thinks of those who think the opposite.

Unless you want to discuss that technically, lets close the subject. Received on Sat Sep 21 2002 - 14:06:45 CDT