Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views

On Aug 26, 6:13 pm, "Bob Jones" <em..._at_me.not> wrote:
> "Richard Foote" <richard.fo..._at_nospam.bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2_Wyi.24466$4A1.1328_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob Jones" <em..._at_me.not> wrote in message
> >news:kOtyi.50198$YL5.8637_at_newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> High BCHR is always better than low - provided everything else being
> >> equal. If BCHR is useless for the stated reasons, no other indicator
> >> would be useful.
>
> > This I'm afraid is where you're fundamentally incorrect.
>
> > A high BCHR can mean your database is on life support, struggling to cope
> > with exessive LIOs due to inefficient SQL with users staring at an
> > hourglass rather than returned data.
>
> > A BCHR that has increased can mean your database has suddenly hit
> > significant performance issues. Or it can mean things have improved. Or it
> > can mean response times remain unaffected.
>
> > A BCHR that has reduced can mean your database has suddenly hit
> > significant performance issues. Or it can mean things have improved (yes,
> > improved because that crippling transaction that was previously performing
> > poorly due to massively exessive LIOs has been fixed, reducing the overall
> > BCHR) . Or it can mean response times remain unaffected.
>
> > Not much of an indicator is it ?
>
> > But saying that a BCHR is *always* better than a low is just plain wrong
> > wrong wrong ...
>
> Didn't I repeatedly say "provided everything else being equal"?
>
> > Do yourself a favour and read this
> >www.hotsos.com/e-library/abstract.php?id=6?
>
> Do yourself a favor and read my comments correctly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We have 'read your comments correctly' and still we arrive at the same conclusion with respect to your 'reasoning' and 'logic'. Your criteria that 'everything else being equal' means what, exactly? What is 'everything else', and how do you define 'equal'? You're spouting verbiage which means little, and that does nothing to fuel your argument. Howard and Richard have provided much in the way of information against your contentions, and have proven their points unequivocably. You, on the other hand, have proven nothing except that you apparently love to see your responses in print, whether or not they are sensible.

You need to re-read Howard's and Richard's responses again. And again. And yet again. Possibly you'll reach an understanding that your original points of contention are ill-conceived and you'll have learned something.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Mon Aug 27 2007 - 09:02:11 CDT