Re: Index compression vs. table compression

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:23:51 +1100
Message-ID: <csv1rq$g2h$1@news-02.connect.com.au>

Richard Foote wrote:

> Let's see if we have this right.
>
> We're wrong in thinking you're wrong when you were really right when you
> wrote the wrong thing because even though it's wrong, what you meant to say
> was right and had you actually written the right thing instead of the wrong
> thing you would not have been wrong but right.
>
> Is that right or wrong ?

Oh, hilarious. You'll go far on the stage, I'm sure.

[snip]

>>>not the cold end, although as Jonathan has pointed out, Oracle no longer 
>>>puts blocks at the "end". So the above is incorrect. The idea of 
>>>"caching" something in memory is to "keep" something in memory and this 
>>>is the purpose of the "KEEP" pool.
>>
>>Stone me. And there was me thinking the word "keep" meant, er, "dispose 
>>of". Not.
>>
>>
>>>So CACHE and KEEP kinda compliment each other (not CACHE and RECYCLE as 
>>>incorrectly stated above)
>>
>>I didn't state that. So don't say I did.

>
>
> Yes you did, *you wrote* quote "CACHE was an attempt to keep large full
> table scans at the cold end of the LRU list, and thus prevent the warm half
> from being flushed out. Precisely what the RECYCLE pool does".
>
> And btw, even with your subsequent amendment (which wasn't mentioned at the
> time of my post), the above is *still wrong*.

Whatever. You keep saying it, and I'm sure you'll really believe it one day.

Perhaps you could get around to including some technical content in a post now and again? Received on Sat Jan 22 2005 - 20:23:51 CST