Thank you all for offering your opinions. Users have not complained
about the performance. I was just checking around to prevent any
possible complaints. I guess I will just talk to users and developers
and see how the application is accessing the database and then decide
if the low hit ratio is supposed to be like that.
"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40622ec2$0$8357$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "JW" <jwu_at_nctr.fda.gov> wrote in message
> news:f4d9400.0403241310.150b1fb4_at_posting.google.com...
> > we have a data warehouse type of database and I noticed that buffer
> > cache hit ratio is very low: db block gets 37,173,962; consistent gets
> > 349,994,093; physical reads 888,341,652. Is this normal in a
> > datawarehouse environment? Thanks.
>
> Who cares?
>
> Are your users complaining about performance?
>
> If not, then your hit ratio is just fine and dandy, whatever it happens to
> be.
>
> The more general point here is that, Don Burleson and TUSC notwithstanding,
> the buffer cache hit ratio is an absolutely abysmal way of tuning anything.
> It can sometimes offer a useful corollary to other statistics; to allow you
> to distinguish between two otherwise equally plausible causes for, for
> example, free buffer waits. But as a performance tuning goal in its own
> right? Furgedaboudit.
>
> Regards
> HJR
Received on Fri Mar 26 2004 - 15:21:09 CST
