Howard,
I will try to make my comments firmer and harder. Thanks for critics.
You are welcome to call on me every time you sense something wrong.
It would be very sporty of you, though, to try to stay within limits and
only answer on the subject. If you could also keep in mind that you
might be wrong yourself, this would be just cool.
The only doubt that I have about "cold hard" facts that you want to see
is that these facts very often have little value. For example, saying that
"performance suffers" can be a cold hard fact from the theoretical point
of view, but absolutely useless in practice. To remind you, that thread
started with this wise remark of yours which you refused to elaborate on.
I cannot keep up with these numbers of postings and I admire you
for keeping them that high. I cannot post on a regular basis either or
garantee timely responses.
Regs
Karen
"Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> "Karen Abgarian" <abvk_at_ureach.com> wrote in message
> news:3D940A9C.D0D55052_at_ureach.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I sense a shovel load of 'horse manure' on it's way o:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nah, only when excrement of another kind is posted first. Which you
> never
> > > do.
> > > (Though references to a certain "pop singer" come close!!)
> > >
> > > ;-)
> >
> > For the sake of completeness, here is this excrement:
>
> You said it.
>
> > > I do not think that it really suffers. The effects should decrease with
> the
> > number
> > > of extents in your rollback segment. If there is too many there is
> always a
> > question
> > > whether they were sized correctly. There should be no impact if the
> > tablespace
> > > hosting your rollback segments is an LMT.
> >
>
> LMT minimises the problem. They don't eliminate it. As you yourself finally
> admitted. And whether LMTs' minimization is sufficient for all databases in
> all circumstances is highly debateable.
>
> > Not to discourage others who dare to post to the forum when you are around
> ....
> >
>
> Since I've made around 4000 posts here over the past 3 years, and you've
> made about 30 fairly vacuous ones in the past 3 weeks, I think it evident
> that I don't discourage anyone who has anything meaningful to say (or ask)
> from posting here (after three years, this place would be dead if what you
> say were true).
>
> What I do ask of you is that you firm up your 'thoughts' and 'feelings' and
> switch to cold, hard facts.
>
> Less of the subjunctive mood ("There should") and rather more of the
> conditional tense ("There would").
>
> > :-)
> >
>
> Smiley faces don't make up for a lack of basic understanding or concrete
> knowledge. I don't know you from Adam (or Eve), and accordingly I couldn't
> particularly give a damn one way or another about you, the person. I am sure
> you are nice, pleasant and a hoot at parties. I confidently expect that you
> can cook a juicy Christmas turkey whilst juggling spinning plates and
> chainsaws. I am even fairly confident that you know, basically, your way
> around Oracle. When, however, you insist on posting random thoughts here as
> though they were worthy of factual merit, I will call you on it every time.
>
> I am sorry if you think me unpleasant whilst doing so. I can assure you that
> I am 10 times more good looking that Richard Foote, and at least as pleasant
> as a rhum truffle on a salacious evening's saucy entertainment. But there
> are enough myths out there already without me readily accepting additions to
> the list.
>
> HJR
>
> >
Received on Sun Sep 29 2002 - 15:01:44 CDT
